Conffederate
Confederate

September 23, 2011

A Fine Line Between Governance and Terrorism

Smuggling weapons--arms trafficking--has long been argued as an act of war or an act of terrorism, whether we're discussing Iran's various attempts to provide weapons of war to those fighting the U.S. and Israel, the German submarine U20's sinking of the Lusitania for smuggling 4.2 million rounds of small arms ammunition, or the Obama Administration's smuggling of thousands of weapons to drug cartels locked in a a mortal struggle with the government of Mexico.

As a matter of fact, U.S. federal law would seem to define Operation Fast and Furious as an act of international terrorism:

As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
  (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
  (B) appear to be intended—
        (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
        (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
        (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
  (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

Operation Fast and Furious seems to have violated multiple federal laws, including the Arms Export Control Act.

More to the point of terrorism, the gun-walking occurred within the United States and knowingly involved allowing weapons to transition an international border with Mexico in order to "intimidate or coerce" Mexico's embattled civilian population and civil government.

Another apparent goal was to influence the policy of U.S. gun laws by coercion (actual ATF implementation of multiple long-gun reporting, asserted attempt to create conditions for a U.S. weapons ban).

Last but not least, Operation Fast and Furious (and contemporary programs) seem designed to affect the conduct of the government of Mexico by providing mass destruction in the form of thousands of firearms used typically used for assassination and kidnapping, and the conduct of the government of the United States by lending anecdotal credence to President Obama's 90-percent lie and trump up support for attacks on the Second Amendment.

Governed by this definition provided in Title 18 of U.S. Code, there is every reason to state that Gunwalker is international terrorism sponsored from the highest levels of appointed and elected officials within the executive branch of the administration of President Barack Obama.

No wonder they want to close Gitmo. As terrorists, that is precisely where they belong.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:09 PM | Comments (1)

September 21, 2011

Choi to Re-enlist

Good for him, and good for the country:

More than two years after former infantry officer Daniel Choi came out on a talk show as a gay service member – an event that led to his discharge - the Iraq war veteran says he will re-enlist in the U.S. Army following Tuesday's repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"Going back to the military will be a vindication," Choi told POLITICO. [I'm] going back because I fought to go back. The seriousness of our claims was not just political theatre – it was really drawn from our lives. I sacrificed so much so I could go back."

I think anyone who is willing to make the sacrifices and serve their nation in the military should be able to, and that's about it. Gays have always been in the military, and I for one am proud to live in a nation where honorable men and women can now openly serve.

Mike Adds:

The problem with this, as well as similarly controversial social dilemmas occurs when people identify themselves primarily by their preferences rather than their duty or nationality. I have far less concern for a soldier who happens to be gay than for a gay soldier. I have no worries about a lawyer who happens to be black, female or gay, but I'm always concerned about a black lawyer or a feminist lawyer or a gay lawyer because they see the law as a means of forcing others to accept their preferences. Similarly, I'm glad to accept any American who happens to be Hispanic, Armenian, etc., but "Hispanic-Americans" or any other hyphenated type, tend to be worrisome.

A soldier who happens to be gay might reasonably never be known to be gay any more than a soldier fond of any other sexual practice. Spare me the "gayness is my identity" meme. If you enlist or accept a commission in the armed services, your identify is that of soldier, sailor, airman or marine. Everything else is secondary.

As Bob has suggested, gay people have indeed served honorably, but they have done so because they have served, first, foremost and always, as soldiers. Being gay was not an issue for them because they were wise enough not to make it an issue so as not to interfere with their--and the military's--mission.

Update (Bob): I should have research more on Choi before commenting on his reenlistment. To put it mildly, his behavior has been controversial and he apparently wasn't a good officer when he did serve.

That now understood, I affirm my support of those who serve... but really wonder if Choi himself should be allowed back in.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:51 AM | Comments (8)

August 23, 2011

These Guys Won?

Look closely at the following photograph currently on the Fox News home page, showing Libyan rebel fighters.

libya_weapons_20110823_214945

Now look even more closely at the dufus on the right.

I've never been in the military (or even played a soldier on television), but even I know that a rocket-propelled grenade loaded in the ass-end of a launcher isn't a threat to anyone.

Seriously... these guys beat Qaddafi?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:22 PM | Comments (10)

Libyan Rebels Claim Qaddafi Compound Breached

I'll believe it when we have confirmation, but it seems plausible.

[Updated 11:39 a.m. ET, 5:39 p.m. in Libya] Rebels are saying they have made it into Gadhafi's Bab Al Aziza compound, CNN's Sara Sidner reported.

"They have been able to take some of the weapons off of the Gadhafi forces," she said.

Rebels are telling Sidner "Gadhafi is nearly finished."

Sidner said that rebels said they are still inside trying to secure the area, but are celebrating as fighting continues.

“Now they’re going to try and clear the compound," Sidner said rebels told her.

Sidner said that she is less than half a kilometer from the compound and can see more smoke coming from the area.

Sidner said rebels are hugging each other and crying on the streets. Loud chants can be heard in the background.

Rebels shouted "God is great, God is great" in celebration Tuesday.

The compound is symbol of the regime, and an important one, but only a symbol. Until they capture or kill Qaddafi and his sons, the fighting will likely continue.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:59 AM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2011

Libyan Regime Goes Dead Parrot

dead-parrotMichael Palin, John Cleese, and Moammar Qaddafi

Rebels control most of Tripoli and have captured his two oldest sons, and it seems a foregone conclusion that the 42-year dictatorship of Moammar Qaddafi is finished, despite the Baghdad Bob protests of his few remaining supporters who hope against hope that the regime is just "pining for the fjords."

The location of the ex-dictator (I think it safe to call him an "ex" when he controls less than 20% of his own capitol) is anyone's guess, and it appears everyone is guessing, from supposing his death (inaccurately, so far), to thinking he's holed up in a strongpoint in Tripoli, to those who feel he has fled to neighboring Algeria, or even to South America.

Predictably, President Obama's supporters are crowing that Qaddafi's downfall is a victory and a feather in the cap of the President.

I say give Obama all the credit possible for what he actually did.

He pledged military and intelligence support to a popular preexisting coalition of primarily Western European forces.

He authorized the U.S. military to use air power, and then reined them in so that their effectiveness was diminished, prolonging the conflict.

Obama joined a victorious coalition, but certainly did not lead it. Give him the credit he deserves for putting a finger in the wind and following popular opinion. Just don't dare claim it amounts to anything remotely like leadership.

Beyond that, let us hope that the various rebel forces that will be vying for control of Libya are a bit less extremist than the dictator they replace. The Libyan people deserve better.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:17 AM | Comments (1)

August 21, 2011

Qadaffi Dead (or not?)... But what next?

Allahpundit is updating so fast I can't keep up with it but the gist of it is that instead of a siege of Tripoli, the various rebel grouping surging into the city are finding that regime loyalists have simply melted away.

As noted in the headline various voices on Twitter are claiming the strongman is dead. If he isn't, and he's in Tripoli, he most likely will be soon if he isn't now.

It is amazing how a bunch of ragtag rebels with no discernible organization can overthrown a firmly entrenched tyrant that started this war with total control of the government and military. Other dictators should look upon Libya with fear in their hearts.

Of course, this doesn't mean rainbows and sunshine for Libyans. We don't know who is going to take power in the suddenly leaderless state, or what their intentions are. The old dictator has fallen.

But what will we face now?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:14 PM | Comments (4)

August 06, 2011

The Deadliest Day

An American special operations helicopter—most likely a CH-47—was downed last night in Afghanistan in the deadliest single incident of the Afghan war for American forces.

A military helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops and seven Afghan commandos, the country's president said Saturday. An American official said it was apparently shot down, in the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.

The Taliban claimed they downed the helicopter with rocket fire while it was taking part in a raid on a house where insurgents were gathered in the province of Wardak late Friday. It said wreckage of the craft was strewn at the scene.l

I think I can speak for both Mike and myself in offering our sincere prayers to the families of those lost, and for the souls of these brave warriors.

Godspeed.

Update: The majority of the dead are Navy SEALs from Team 6. The aircrew is probably from the Army's 160th SOAR, and the remainder of those killed were Afghan military. It is beginning to sound like a Taliban gunner got lucky with an RPG as the helicopter shortly after taking off as the mission was completing and the unit was exfiltrating.

Elements of Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden.

I would not be surprised at all if the RPG came from the Pakistani ISI.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:08 AM | Comments (4)

July 22, 2011

Terror in Oslo: Religion of Pedophilia and Infantile Rage Strikes Again

There was a massive car bomb that shattered the facades of buildings around the Norwegian Prime Minister's office, and there are now unconfirmed reports of a gunman dressed as a police officer shooting up a youth camp outside the capitol, and other possible unexploded bombs in the city of Oslo.

The BBC is providing on-going coverage of what appears to be not just one, but a possible series of terror attacks.

And the obligatory Islamic tie-in:

The blast comes as Norway grapples with a homegrown terror plot linked to al-Qaida. Two suspects are in jail awaiting charges.

Last week, a Norwegian prosecutor filed terror charges against an Iraqi-born cleric for threatening Norwegian politicians with death if he is deported from the Scandinavian country. The indictment centered on statements that Mullah Krekar -- the founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam -- made to various news media, including American network NBC.

We can't outlaw a peaceful religion, but we sure as Hell can outlaw violent cults.

It's time we started working on making that happen.

Update: The claims of responsibility from the terror group have turned out to be bogus. It's a sick person in a sick cult who takes credit for something like this.

Details are sketchy, but it appears that the attacker is a native Norwegian and is responsible for both the bombing in Oslo and the shootings at the youth camp.

He is in police custody.

Update: The body count has skyrocketed to at least 84 on the island, and 91 overall.

Norwegian national broadcaster NRK identified the shooter as 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, and he is apparently an anti-Muslim right-wing extremist and Christian Fundamentalist. He is Norway's McVeigh.

Let the title of this article of this blog post be a warning not to jump to conclusions, even when the crime fits the M.O. and one terrorist group or another within the Islamic Death Cult claims responsibility.

The key difference to remember--while American liberals gloat over the wrong assumptions we made based upon initial claims--is that when so-called Christians embark on crimes of this nature, they are expressly violating one of the key tenants of our faith. When Muslims commit mass murder, they are typically following key tenants of their faith.

Big difference.

Regardless of the politically focused sideshow, my heartfelt sympathies extend to the families affected by this madman. Please send them your prayers.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:36 AM | Comments (14)

July 13, 2011

Mumbai Bombed on Terrorist's Birthday

Three bombs. Nothing definitive on casualties yet, but initial reports indicate three killed and at least dozens wounded.

Rather obviously, the Religion of Peace/Cult of Death has struck again.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:06 AM | Comments (4)

July 06, 2011

Obama Continues to Ignore Iran's Arming and Training of Shiite Militias as American Soldiers Die

American soldiers in Iraq are being attacked and killed with increasing sophisticated weapons provided by Iran, and the Obama Administration does nothing:

James F. Jeffrey, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said Tuesday that fresh forensic testing on weapons used in the latest deadly attacks in the country bolsters assertions by U.S. officials that Iran is supporting Iraqi insurgents with new weapons and training.

"We're not talking about a smoking pistol. There is no doubt this is Iranian," Jeffrey said in an interview.

"We're seeing more lethal weapons, more accurate weapons, more longer-range weapons," Jeffrey added. "And we're seeing more sophisticated mobile and other deployment options, and we’re seeing better-trained people."

In some cases, insurgents made no effort to remove from the weapons identification numbers suggesting that they came from Iran, "which in itself is troubling," Jeffrey said.

Training is being provided by the Revolutionary Guards, which supports Shia terrorism worldwide.

A stern response in the form of a series of "accidents" at Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases or among IRG commanders might get Iranian attention, and if carefully targeted, could decapitate the leadership authorizing the attacks without overt war. It would be fighting Iran on its own terms, in the kind of guerilla warfare fighting Americans have excelled at since Major Benjamin Church led the first American ranger units in King Philips War a hundred years before we were an inkling of a nation.

We know how to defeat Iran at their own game. We simply need the political will to engage in this kind of conflict and win.

Of course, there doesn't seem to be the political will to counter Iran, and perhaps the President simply can't muster the outrage to attack kindred spirits.

We are, after all, talking about an Administration that has done nearly the same thing in arming Mexican narco-terrorists via the Department of Justice's Gunwalker program.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:34 AM | Comments (1)

May 24, 2011

Idiot Obama Sets Out to Create Another War

Barack Obama finally found a Middle Eastern leader he wouldn't bow down to in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also seems intent on empowering the militant Arabs surrounding Israel with the moral cover to start another war.

...Mr. Obama's problem isn't, as he supposes, that people aren't paying close enough attention to him. On the contrary, they've noticed that on Thursday Mr. Obama called for Israel to make territorial concessions to some approximation of the '67 lines before an agreement is reached on the existential issues of refugees and Jerusalem. "Moving forward now on the basis of territory and security," he said, "provides a foundation to resolve these two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians."

Mr. Obama neglected to mention these points on Sunday, hence the telling omission. But the essence of his proposal is that Israel should cede territory, put itself into a weaker position, and then hope for the best. This doesn't even amount to a land-for-peace formula.

That's not all. Mr. Obama got some applause Sunday by calling for a "non-militarized" Palestinian state. But how does that square with his comment, presumably applicable to a future Palestine, that "every state has a right to self-defense"? Mr. Obama was also cheered for his references to Israel as a "Jewish state." But why then obfuscate on the question of Palestinian refugees, whose political purpose over 63 years has been to destroy Israel as a Jewish state?

Barack the Younger seems intend on creating the conditions for a modern round of Arab-Israeli wars, where it seems his favor lies with the bloodthirsty and genocidal Arabs.

I cannot for the life of me why he continues to stir up trouble for our allies, unless he doesn't consider himself to be on their side. Why, the next thing you know, he'll make statements that encourage the IRA.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:09 AM | Comments (1)

May 12, 2011

Professional Idiot Ron Paul Would Not Have Authorized Bin Laden Mission

Proving yet again why this messiah to the dim and half-baked is simply unfit for the job he wants.

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"

Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."

"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"

The correct answer is damn right you send the Blackhawks into London, and fire on Britain's throngs of disloyal Bin Laden supporters if necessary.

What Ron Paul doesn't get—and will never get—is that it is easy to be an ideologue when you don't have any real responsibilities. Obama is being exposed to this reality the hard way, which is why he's been dragged kicking and screaming into many of the (correct) foreign policy and military decisions undertaken by his predecessors, despite his unrealistic campaign promises.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:52 AM | Comments (6)

May 09, 2011

Chuck Schumer Proposes "No Ride" List for Amtrak

I'm pretty sure he didn't think this one all the way through:

A senator on Sunday called for a "no-ride list" for Amtrak trains after intelligence gleaned from the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound pointed to potential attacks on the nation's train system.

Sen. Charles Schumer said he would push as well for added funding for rail security and commuter and passenger train track inspections and more monitoring of stations nationwide.

"Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public," the New York Democrat said at a news conference.

As you would expect from a New york progressive, Schumer's "solution" is to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at a problem without solving it.

Any student of history has to be aware that while stations and the trains themselves are prime targets, the rail lines themselves are the weak link. During every major conflict from the mid 19th century onward, rail lines have been major targets for saboteurs, and those lines are nearly impossible to continuously monitor.

Terrorists do not need to enter a train station or get on a train to destroy the train; all they need to do is target an unguarded or just checked section of track with minimal explosives or even robust hand tools to cause a catastrophic derailment. Spending money we don't have to focus additional security resources on the part of the system that already has the most robust security measures is a fool's errand.

Further, Shumer assumes that passenger trains are the best target for catastrophic casualties, but the derailment of a chemical-laden freight train resulting in the rupture of caustic chemicals could lead to an incident on par with Bhopal.

If Schumer wants to provide the illusion of doing something worthwhile at great expense, he's certainly on the right path. But his farcical "no-ride" list will do nothing to save Americans lives.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM | Comments (8)

May 06, 2011

Obama Honors SEALs That Killed Bin Laden

Fox News has the story:

President Obama has met with the assault forces who carried out the strike on Osama bin Laden and has awarded them a presidential citation.

The White House says the president, along with Vice President Joe Biden, met privately with the troops at Fort Campbell, Ky., to thank them for their service.

Obama met with the full assault force involved in the raid in Pakistan carried out by Navy SEALS and also with helicopter operators who got them there. He awarded the units involved a Presidential Unit Citation -- the highest such honor that can go to a military unit -- to recognize "extraordinary service and achievement."

In a show of respect, the special operations team presented President Obama with a rare unit patch to wear on his Commander-in-Chief's jacket, something I'm told has not been done for other recent Presidents.

Blue_Falcon
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:11 PM | Comments (6)

al Qaeda Confirms that Bin Laden Sleeps with the Fishes

I guess this will make things a little harder on the conspiracy theorists, but only just a little bit.

Al Qaeda released a statement on jihadist forums Friday confirming the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, according to SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist websites.

The development comes days after U.S. troops killed bin Laden in a raid on a compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad.

The statement, translated by SITE, lauded the late militant, threatened to take action against the United States, and urged Pakistanis to "rise up and revolt."

Bin Laden's death will serve as a "curse that chases the Americans and their agents, and goes after them inside and outside their countries," the message said.

"Soon -- with help from Allah -- their happiness will turn into sorrow, and their blood will be mixed with their tears," it said.

It appears the White House decision to go back on the precedent of publishing pictures of dead terrorists accomplished precisely nothing, which anyone could have predicted. Perhaps one day we'll one again elect a President that understands that you win wars by breaking the enemy ability and spirit to fight, not placating them.

Barack Obama is not that President.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:25 AM | Comments (2)

May 05, 2011

Video Blackout on Bin Laden Raid? Not Likely.

Is anyone buying this?

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: "Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn't know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

"We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound."

The video feeds of this op were likely transmitted via a drone circling overhead, an AWACS or similar aircraft in Afghanistan and another in the Arabian Sea, and surveillance satellites overhead. The odds that feeds from 79 operators, fed through multiple uplinks, was never seen or recorded simply isn't credulous.

Further, you'll note that Panetta chose his words very carefully. They did not have direct flow of information. That indicates that there were recording of the assault recorded on the flash-memory of helmet-mounted cameras, but these are just one more set of images—along with the three or more sets of photographs of Bin Laden's body—that the "most transparent Administration in history" refuses to show the American people.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:45 AM | Comments (3)

May 04, 2011

Real Presidents Show Dead Terrorists

zarqawi
Zarqawi

udayqusay2
Uday and Qusay Hussein


But then, nobody ever accused Barack Hussein Obama of being a real President.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:17 PM | Comments (6)

GUTLESS

Barack Obama refuses to publish any of the death photos of Osama Bin Laden.

The decision confirms that Obama is weak and too deferential to the sensitivities of people who celebrated the murder of thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001, and who delighted in the beheading snuff films of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg.

Barack Obama cares more about the opinions of terrorists than he does closure for the America people.

Screw him.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:07 PM | Comments (7)

May 03, 2011

Bin Laden's Death Ultimately Means Little

For most Americans—including progressives that suddenly seem okay with violence directed at someone other than conservatives—Bin Laden's death was a source of both relief and satisfaction. At the same time, those of us grounded in reality—and some aren't—know that neither al Qaeda, nor the Taliban, nor greater Islam's barbaric normalism has suddenly ended because of one man's death.

Osama Bin Laden was just one of thousands of committed warlords in 1,400 years of Islamic history that dedicated his life to the destruction of all ideas that were not lock-step in line with his own. Islam has not been diminished by his death. It's constant bloodlust and history of oppression is not subdued as a result of his passing. Osama Bin Laden's death is just one of a millions that can attributed to the world's most violent death cult. He is merely one of the more recent martyrs.

The war between good and evil, light and dark, the rest of the world and Islam, will continue.

There can be no peace as long as Islam exists. Every second of their history since 632 AD confirms that sad fact. You cannot "coexist" with evil.

You kill it, or it kills you.

And so the war continues.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:28 PM | Comments (5)

May 02, 2011

Final Photo Of Osama Bin Laden

chum_bucket

Appropriately enough, the last words ever said to him were, "What's up, chum?"

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:09 PM | Comments (4)

Bin Laden Death Photo?

A picture of a dead Osama bin Laden. AFP, via Yahoo.

Caption reads:

Iraqis watch a news broadcast on Al-Arabiya showing an image which allegedly shows the body of Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden. The killing of bin Laden by US forces at a palatial villa near the capital Islamabad has raised fresh questions over Pakistan's loyalties in the war against Al-Qaeda. (AFP/Sabah Arar)

Update: Image Al-Arabiya is showing may have been Photo-shopped according to commenter (see below). I wouldn't be that surprised.

Confirmed a fake.

The U.S. government almost certainly had video cameras recording every second of the raid from satellite, drones, helicopters, and SEAL team member helmet-mounted sources. They also must have still photos from the scene and on-board ship where his DNA was drawn for confirmation and his body was buried at sea.

This confirming information must be made public, While most rational people will find the claims of his death credible, there are a significant number—particularly among his supporters and sympathizers—who will refuse to admit his death if not dramatically shown otherwise with concrete proof. In this day and age, photos and videos still trump DNA tests that people in many parts of the world don't understand or trust.

Show us his corpse, or the conspiracy theorists will have a field day with their rumors.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:21 AM | Comments (5)

Hidden By Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden Killed

Justice served.

Bin Laden's hideout was a custom-built home 100 yards from one of Pakistan's elite military academy. That nation obviously was aware of the hideout and was harboring the world's most wanted terrorist... for how long we have not been told. They have a lot to answer for, and all U.S. funding to that nation needs to stop NOW until we learn just how complicit they were.

Update: Bert still on the run.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:11 AM | Comments (3)

March 07, 2011

Oh, For a New AVG

As speculation leaks out this morning that Syria aircraft and ground troops may be fighting Libyan rebels on behalf of Qaddafi's dictatorship, it makes me wonder how many lives might eventually be saved if there was a way for forming something like the American Volunteer Group that fought for the Chinese in world War II. You probably know them better as the Flying Tigers.

flying tigers

With the cost of today's 4th and now 5th generation jet fighters there is no reasonable expectation of a volunteer force fighting a direct air-to-air war against modern (or nearly modern) fighters, but even a single squadron of generation's old close-air support and observation aircraft could bring this conflict to a quicker and hopefully less costly end. Modern piston-drive COIN aircraft such as the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 or the EMB-314 Super Tucano could level the playing field for the rebels, as they are more than capable of taking on the improvised gun trucks and tanks of Qaddafi's loyalists and mercenaries, and quite frankly, could probably do so with a bit more accuracy (and collateral damage) than the jet aircraft the dictator's forces have been using.

The AT-6 is even familiar to many pilots; the trainer version of the plane is the primary trainer the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy pilots and the pilots of 19 other nations.

Like the original AVG, the pilots and ground crews of this theoretical group would be made up of men that volunteered to serve, flying planes loaned to the besieged rebels. At or near the end of the conflict, with the tables decisively turned, the aircraft could be returned to their originating nations or "donated" to the new government for oil.

I know that the odds of any nation loaning the Libyan rebels aircraft and crews is almost non-existent, but I have to wonder ho many lives might be saved and how much shorter the conflict would be if this relatively modest investment (in military terms) could be used to break what increasingly looks like a bloody and protracted stalemate that may cost thousands of lives.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:19 AM | Comments (10)

March 03, 2011

NATO Helicopters Kill Nine Afghan Boys Collecting Firewood

This really confuses me and pisses me off.

Which nation's helicopters were responsible for this attack, and if American Apache gunships, where was the target discrimination? We've spent hundreds of millions for state-of-the-art sensors that can cut through darkness and fog, and none of that technology was able to tell that these children were carrying firewood, and not weapons?

I don't need to be told there is a fog of war, but we seem to be repeating this kind of mistaken identity every few months. You can't win a counterinsurgency like this.

Good grief.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:43 AM | Comments (12)

Bradley Manning Faces Possible Death Penalty

The treasonous weasel deserves nothing more than a fair trail and a fair execution.

The Army on Wednesday filed 22 new charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of illegally downloading tens of thousands of classified U.S. military and State Department documents that were then publicly released by WikiLeaks, military officials told NBC News. The most serious of the new charges is "aiding the enemy," a capital offense that could carry a potential death sentence.

Pentagon and military officials say some of the classified information released by WikiLeaks contained the names of informants and others who had cooperated with U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, endangering their lives.

What Manning deserves and what he gets, however, could be two vastly different things. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that Bradley Manning is guilty; no one actually argues Manning isn't absolutely guilty of disclosing hundreds of thousands of files. Some extremists are trying to manufacture whistleblower status for the imprisoned leaker, but the simple fact is that Manning ignored the established protocols whistleblowers have that would have afforded him protection, and instead intentionally decided to attempt to damage U.S. military and foreign policy.

Others may chose to scapegoat Manning's sexuality, but I find that unfair to the legion of gay servicemen and women that served this nation honorably over the history of the Republic.

Manning is a traitor to his nation and his service who intentionally put the lives of U.S. citizens and allies at risk. He is an information terrorist. No amount of spin by left wing zealots can spin that ugly truth away.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:43 AM | Comments (3)

February 22, 2011

Time for Naval, Air Strikes Against Pirates in Somalia

Four Americans on a private yacht captured by Somali pirates have been killed by their captors. News is understandably sketchy at this point, but it appears that at least some of the pirates may have been engaged by U.S. naval forces that were shadowing the vessel after the murders.

The international community has allowed pirates to operate off Somalia for far too long, and has done nothing to eradicate the threat.

While pirates operate off the coast, the simple fact of the matter is that they cannot exist without a support structure onshore. These pirate havens are well known to the governments of the world, and poorly defended. Bombardment from the air or sea could easily reduce the pirate strongholds to rubble, sink the "motherships" that pirates use to extend their range offshore, and of course, eliminate the pirates themselves.

Among this nation's first foreign policy decisions were two small wars (the Barbary Wars) against African pirates. Piracy that had existed for centuries in the region came to a halt only when overwhelming force was brought to bear. Two hundred years later, the same motivations encourage the pirates of Somalia, and only the same forceful response can end the modern age of African piracy.

Such a campaign can easily be won with minimal or even non-existent U.S. casualties. It merely remains to be seen if the Obama Administration will decide to stand for American interests, or instead remain ever deferential to any thuggish entity that claims Islam for its inspiration.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:05 AM | Comments (15)

February 14, 2011

WMDs? What WMDs?

So either this San Diego Customs and Border Patrol agent is a full-on loony, or WMDs have been intercepted entering our nations ports.

I rather suspect that Al Hallor, the assistant port director/CBP officer that made these comments is simply being shockingly candid. We know that terrorist groups would love to use WMDs inside America, and that plots have been uncovered around the world where terrorist groups have attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, radiological material, and both chemical and biological weapons. Sooner or later an attempt would be made to bring it into our nation, and I'm not surprised at all that some were intercepted.

Quite frankly, I would be shocked if attempts to use WMDs within the US have already made it past our borders and have been tried, but failed. As easy as it is to smuggle in millions of illegal aliens and thousands of tons of drugs each year over our virtually undefended borders with Mexico and Canada, it is only logical to suspect WMDs have already made it into this nation.

Getting them here is only part of the battle. Deploying them effectively is another matter entirely.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:46 AM | Comments (3)

January 27, 2011

Napolitano's Focus On Molesting Grandmothers in Airports Is Letting Iranian Suicide Bombers Slip Across Our Southern Border

Or at least that is in one inference that can be made by this story out of Arizona:

A book celebrating suicide bombers has been found in the Arizona desert just north of the U.S.- Mexican border, authorities tell Fox News.

The book, "In Memory of Our Martyrs," was spotted Tuesday by a U.S. Border Patrol agent out of the Casa Grande substation who was patrolling a route known for smuggling illegal immigrants and drugs.

Published in Iran, it consists of short biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died carrying out attacks.

According to internal U.S. Customs and Border Protection documents, "The book also includes letters from suicide attackers to their families, as well as some of their last wills and testaments." Each biographical page contains "the terrorist's name, date of death, and how they died."

Perhaps the most asinine claim made in the article is a blatant lie by a unnamed DHS spokesman:

"At this time, DHS does not have any credible information on terrorist groups operating along the Southwest border," a Department of Homeland Security official said in a statement.

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) called upon DHS to investigate Hezbollah's actions along the U.S.-Mexican border in June of last year.

The mainstream media, investment magazines, and even political think tanks have been writing about the issue as long ago as 2009, and rumors of US covert action against Islamic terrorist groups in Mexico and other Central and South America countries dates back even further.

Is DHS really expecting us to believe that the border they refuse to protect isn't the easiest and most logical infiltration route for terrorists, just as it is for cartels?

We will see the Mexican border shut iron-tight in a matter of days after the next massive terrorist strike in this nation is linked to terrorists waltzing into this nation, armed to the teeth as they did in Mumbai.

When that happens, I hope the American citizenry holds the political class (both parties) responsible, and puts those responsible for allowing this to happen in prison where they belong.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:50 AM | Comments (4)

December 19, 2010

.308 Winchester/7.62 NATO Outlawed by Iraq for PMCs?

I just had a very interesting phone with a defense contractor, who informed me that the Iraqi government just passed a law that outlaws the use of .308 Winchester/7.62 rifles in Iraq by private military contractors.

As a result, overwatch teams that have been using rifles chambered in this caliber for counter-sniper roles are going to have to find other long-range calibers that meet the standards of Iraqi law. I have no idea if this affects 7.62 machine guns as well.

Why has this been done? I have absolutely no idea, and cannot find the first mention of this in the MSM or military media at this time. There is the possibility that this is a false alarm or miscommunication of some sort, but if it is, it is a miscommunication serious enough that PMCs are reaching out for alternative weapons.

I'll update if I learn any more.

12/20 Update: This doesn't appear to be a "law" as such, but perhaps a directive or "suggestion." I can get my hands on the language, but it appears that the intent it to require counter-sniper weapons to be chambered in 5.56, something similar to a Mk 12.

Considering much of the PMC work and Iraqi population is contained in urban areas with high population densities, it makes sense to reduce the risk of over-penetrating or off-target bullets to nearby civilians, and the reduced range is probably mitigated by the reality of reduced lines of sight anyway (that is purely speculative, btw).

All things considered, this seems to be a pretty logical request, does it not?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:11 PM | Comments (9)

December 11, 2010

The Handy-Dandy, All-Purpose Entrapment Defense

On December 8, Muhammed Hussein--Antonio Martinez before his conversion to Islam--was arrested by the FBI. But why? Was the evil FBI engaging in racist, anti-Muslim profiling? Not unless one considers arresting Hussein after he actually tried to detonate a bomb which was, thankfully, an FBI supplied fake, at a Baltimore County military recruiting facility to be racist, anti-Muslim profiling.

This is yet another in a series of good catches on the part of law enforcement, catches wherein dedicated, home-grown jihadists, have been discovered and intercepted before they could actually kill innocent Americans on American soil. This is the good news. The bad news is that, as always, we have to be lucky every time and everywhere, and the jihadists have to be lucky only once and only here and there. This situation also illuminates a danger to which America is uniquely susceptible due to, as usual, politically correct good intentions. I’ll explore that danger and an effective, easily implemented fix to largely remove it as a danger in a multi-part series in the near future, but for this post, the issue raised by Hussein and his supporters is: Entrapment.

Entrapment is a term much bandied about, particularly by common criminals, defense attorneys, creatures of the left, community activists and organizers and increasingly, by jihadists. It’s an easy charge to make and one easily believed because most Americans don’t know what it actually is. Even the always annoying and often disgusting Geraldo Rivera--he of the Snidely Whiplash mustache--joined in the entrapment game, perhaps because of a race-based knee-jerk reflex toward defending Hispanic criminals. Appearing on the O’Reily Factor shortly after Hussein’s arrest, Rivera sagely observed that Hussein/Martinez was “just a gullible youngster,” and of course, accused the FBI of entrapment. Hussein, by the way, is 21.

The ‘Lectric Law Library provides a useful, and quite commonly understood, definition of entrapment (here):

“A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit.”

The LLE also provides a useful, commonly understood, three part test to determine if entrapment has occurred:

“- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.”

In plain English, if someone is inclined to kill innocents in furtherance of Jihad, and the police merely provide the opportunity for that person to act on their clearly professed desires, no entrapment has occurred. Despite the howls of outrage of civil liberties types to the contrary this makes perfect sense; it is absolutely how the police should conduct business.

In the case of Muhammed Hussein, the facts are clear: He came to the attention of the FBI after posting on his Facebook page calls to commit violence against non-Muslims and expressing his hatred for infidels (non-Muslims). The FBI made contact with Hussein through an informant and rapidly determined that he was not just a loud mouthed blowhard with no homicidal intent, but a genuine, home-grown jihadist who was quite serious in his deadly desires. Unless one is willing to say that investigating such a person is a violation of their First Amendment rights and that the mere process of determining their intent amounts to harassment or entrapment, then the FBI did exactly what should and must be expected of them. The alternative is that law enforcement officers must ignore potentially deadly threats in favor of waiting until after bombs explode in the midst of innocents.

What is known of this case suggests that the FBI conducted a textbook, completely legal and honorable, sting. The idea for committing Jihad came from Hussein who announced his intent to the world. The FBI did not talk him into committing the crime and in fact, carefully and on multiple occasions, recorded Hussein expressing his murderous intent, intent that he was more than ready and willing to act upon if only he had the means, means supplied by the FBI. The FBI made such recordings over time because an attorney working an entrapment defense will try to show that their client was, as Rivera suggested, “just a gullible youngster,” minding his own business until the police--who apparently have unlimited time and resources to waste persecuting random citizens--came along and coerced him into trying to blow up a military recruiting center. In this, as in most such cases, the defendant’s own words--as well as his actions--will serve to convict him.

Once again, our security services were not only very good, but lucky, and Americans are alive because of their dedication and skill. Those who cry “entrapment” in such cases, whether media personalities or Congressmen, willfully put themselves on the side of those who would gladly kill us all. We would be well served to remember their names.

Posted by MikeM at 08:05 PM | Comments (2)

December 05, 2010

WikiLeaks is Now A Terrorist Organization

I've been critical of WikiLeaks in the past for several reasons, from the fact that they are pursuing a clear political agenda designed to harm the United States to the highly inflammatory language and distorted context of some of the illicitly garnered information under their control.

I've also been quite clear that I consider Bradley Manning one of worse traitor's in American history (easily the worst in terms of volume) who deserves nothing less than the death penalty for passing along classified information during wartime.

I've been a bit more forgiving of Julian Assange, the glory-hounding promoter and leader of Wikileaks, and of Americans invovled with Wikileaks, but now that I've read of their "Doomsday device" containing unredacted information that assuredly will put lives in danger, I view the group—and individuals in possession of the file who intend to release it—as nothing more or less than information terrorists, and urge that our military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets treat them as such.

At over 1.4GB of information, the NSA and other federal agencies should have no problem identifying and tracking who has downloaded the file, the release of which constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States. All overt official and covert extrajudicial remedies should be authorized by the President to reacquire control over this information.

This is classified information that enemies of our nation are threatening to use against us during wartime, risking the lives of our soldiers and operatives worldwide. They should be hunted with the same vigor as al Qaeda, and offered the same mercies if they resist.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:46 PM | Comments (10)

November 19, 2010

Heavy Metal Moves to the 'Stan

There is a steady escalation of force occurring in Afghanistan, though it seems few in this country realize the pressure being brought to bear. The volume of precision air-delivered munitions has been steadily increasing. The Army has now brought in a handful of futuristic XM25 25mm grenade launchers for field (combat) testing, and if they perform as well as hoped, additional XM25s are assured for wider deployment. On top of that, the Army is introducing a company of M1 Abrams main battle tanks to the conflict for the first time in the nice-year war, with the goal of using the 120mm main gun to crack open Taliban safe houses and fighting positions.

The Abrams will likely excel in Afghanistan as it has in the other environments in which it has been used, but the mil-geek in me wonders if the Stryker-variants armed with 120mm mortars (which have seen use in Iraq, but I don't know about Afghanistan) or the 105mm Mobile Gun variant (still in testing?) wouldn't be a better option for many Afghan missions because of their relative stealth and mobility advantages.

In any event, it appears the Taliban are in for a vicious fight.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:52 AM | Comments (7)

November 17, 2010

Profiteering from the Sheep

Joshua Rhett Miller has made a rather disgusting display of bad journalism on FoxNews.com today, in an article about the TSA's invasive news passenger screening program that either irradiates passengers or results in their sexual assault by TSA employees.

In an apparent effort to buttress the TSA position, Miller goes to Carie Lemack and Mary and Frank Fetchet for their opinions. None of the three are air security professionals, bomb techs or terrorism experts. Their only uniting thread is that they had relatives killed as passengers on planes on 9/11.

This is nothing more or less than a false appeal to authority, as if traumatic loss granted security expertise or insights. The Fetchets and LeMack have no special knowledge. Their opinions are no more relevant to a discussion of air security than is a Kalahari bushman's.

We're plagued by incompetence in Homeland Security, and journalists like Miller are clouding the issue by asking the unqualified for advice.

Neither the millimeter-wave or backscatter X-ray technologies increase security for air passengers, anymore than does taking off your shoes, surrendering corkscrews or nail files, or reducing the size of your mouthwash bottles. All of these are gimmicks developed to give the impression that authorities are making us safer, even as the real gaping holes in air security remain as wide-open as they always have been.

Anyone could walk through the most advanced millimeter-wave or backscatter X-ray machines on the market with enough explosives to down an airliner. This isn't up for debate. It is an unassailable fact.

Homeland Security is spending hundreds of millions of dollars because Janet Napolitano likes to pretend she is worth her salary, while former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff turns a tidy profit from the machines themselves. It isn't about your safety. It's about profiting from your fear, and with something around 80% buying the government's claims, it appears they are succeeding.

Baa. Baa. Baa.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:07 PM | Comments (6)

October 09, 2010

Among Jackals

If one studies the psychological disease known as the "Palestinian cause," revulsion is the only natural response. This is a culture that draws its entire premise for existence from plotting genocide against Jews and eradicating Israel from the map. If you think this is hyperbole you only need read the charters of the terrorist groups that run Palestinian life, sample some of the vile propaganda that they feel their children as television programming, or simply watch how they use their own poisoned young without regard to life or limb, as this video shows.

Watch it once, and you'll notice the rabid attack of a small car by a gang of Palestinian youths. They charge directly into traffic on a narrow street, and one of the junior terrorists is hurled through the air as the drive simply lacks the time to stop as the mob converges.

Watch the video a second time, and you'll note that the rock-throwing monsters are being directed and filmed by Palestinian adults including not less than a half-dozen "journalists" with high end digital still cameras and video cameras to capture the staged event from every angle.

Watch the video a third time, and you suddenly realize that the child getting hit was purposefully orchestrated... in fact, it was required. The Palestinian adults chose a bottleneck in the road where the driver had no room to avoid the children, and that the attack took place on a sharp curve, where he could not see the attack in advance and avoid it.

The children themselves converge from all directions, focused on a spot in front of the car. These Palestinian children were purposefully sent into traffic in the hopes that one or more of them would get hit by a car driven by an Israeli so that they could use the tightly cropped and controlled images to generate more anti-Israeli propaganda.

Think about the kind of people who would send their children into on-coming traffic in hopes they are struck down, and tell me that kind of mindset is something with which you can negotiate.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (7)

August 14, 2010

An Affront from Now to 9/11, to the Shores of Tripoli

Remember when Air Force One buzzed Manhattan for a photo op and spread terror among New York City, still (understandably) sensitive of careening airliners because of 9/11?

The Prince of Snides shows that kind of sensitivity again.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

The Won cites Jefferson's views of religious tolerance... accidentally underscoring the fact that the United States has been fighting against militant Islam since the very founding of our nation.

This is also the same Thomas Jefferson who said:

"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

We are led—and I use that term with all due reservation—by a would-be ruling class that repeatedly bows in supplication instead of celebrating American exceptionalism. Our current President is just the latest feckless example of that spineless mold.

There are rights, and there are rights. Mass murderers never have the right to prance and pose over the remains of their victims. If Barack Obama doesn't understand that, he simply is not fit to be President, and is barely worthy of being called a citizen.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:27 AM | Comments (21)

August 04, 2010

Congressman: Execute Manning if Guilty

What else needs to be said?

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told a local radio station on Monday that the charges against Pvt. Bradley Manning are worthy of capital punishment.

"We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed," he told Michigan-based WHMI. "That's pretty serious. If they don't charge him with treason, they ought to charge him with murder.

"I argue the death penalty clearly should be considered here," he said. "He clearly aided the enemy to what may result in the death of U.S. soldiers . . . If that is not a capital offense, I don't know what is."


That Bradley Manning may have committed treason because of his politics (he's apparently a huge Rachel Maddow and Media Matters fan) just makes me hope he's given a longer rope at the gallows.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:38 AM | Comments (8)

July 29, 2010

Blue Falcon Bradley Manning Confirmed As Primary Suspect in Wikileaks Afghan Doc DumpAfghan

So tell me, gentle readers... when is the last time a member of the armed forces disgraced his uniform, his fellow servicemen, our allies, and his country this much? He's the anti-Audie Murphy.

The Pentagon is focusing on jailed Army Pfc. Bradley Manning as the main suspect in the leak of tens of thousands of secret U.S. military documents related to the war in Afghanistan, a senior Pentagon official told CNN Wednesday.

Manning, 22, is believed to have accessed a worldwide military classified Internet and e-mail system to download tens of thousands of documents, according to the official, who did not want to be identified because of the ongoing criminal investigation of the soldier.


Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:02 AM | Comments (5)

Breaking: Second Missing Sailor in Afghanistan Found Dead

No details yet, or any indication whether he was killed in the initial ambush, or later. Will update as more information comes in.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:42 AM | Comments (2)

July 28, 2010

Let's Try Bradley Manning for Treason

I was wrong.

The Afghan War documents published by Julian Assange and Wikileaks aren't just a compendium of old news. It also includes the names of Afghan nationals that have been trying to help defeat the Taliban, and now puts hundreds of lives at risk.

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. "The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."

One former intelligence official told the paper that the Taliban could launch revenge attacks on "traitors" in the coming days.

The real suspected traitor in this mess is U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, the analyst who bragged to a white hat hacker that he had stolen over a quarter-million military and diplomatic documents and sent them to WikiLeaks. Manning was taken into custody earlier this year after being fingered by the military as the source of the Apache gun camera footage Assange turned into a propaganda film called "Collateral Murder" that Assange used for fund-raising and not a little self-promotion. Manning is also the primary and obvious suspected leaker of these documents, which may be part of the $250,000 he stole.

I argued back in June that Manning should be charged with treason. If he is found to be the source of those documents, his only choice should be between rope, bullets, or a needle.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:49 AM | Comments (12)

July 27, 2010

Winning Hearts And Minds? What About Half-Credit?

A squad of soldiers is given orders to go out and capture a high-value terrorist target in the mountains of Afghanistan. During a firefight, the target is killed, but the combat rages around them, and they are unable to retrieve the body for identification.

One of the soldiers improvises... and may now face charges. I don't see why.

After all, he kept his head:

Just picture the scene as a soldier returns from hunting an arch-enemy. Commanding officer: 'Did you get him?' Soldier: 'Yes, sir.' Commanding officer: 'Are you sure?' Soldier: 'Yes, sir.' Soldier reaches into rucksack and places severed head on table.

Commanding officer: ' ****!' If it happened in a Hollywood movie, the audience would either laugh or applaud. But there was no laughter the other day when this happened for real in Babaji, Afghanistan, current posting for the 1st Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles.

The precise circumstances will not be determined until an official report has been completed, but reliable military sources have confirmed that a Gurkha patrol was sent out with orders to track down a Taliban warlord described as a 'high-value target'.

Having identified their target, a fierce battle ensued during which the warlord was killed. To prove that they had got their man, the Gurkhas attempted to remove the body for identification. Further enemy fire necessitated a fast exit minus corpse. So, an unnamed soldier drew his kukri - the standard-issue Gurkha knife - removed the man's head and legged it.

The Afghans are horrified, and the spineless British, of course, seem intent on punishing the soldier for doing his job to the best of his ability.

Was the beheading barbaric? Did it horrify the Afghans, and strike fear into the hearts of the Taliban and al Qaeda?

Good.

The idea of "winning their hearts and minds" is wonderful, in theory, but striking fear into the hearts of your enemy and those who would aide them is a tactic that has been just as effective throughout history.

Let the Taliban sweat.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:18 PM | Comments (13)

Body of One Missing Sailor Recovered in Afghanistan

He apparently was the sailor killed during the the capture attempt. The second sailor is presumed captured, as the Taliban has claimed. the Taliban hopes to use him as leverage in a prisoner exchange.

There is still no word publicly on why the men left their base alone.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:58 AM | Comments (2)

July 24, 2010

Taliban Claims Two U.S. Soldiers Captured

And worse than the often exaggerated claims of the Taliban, ISAF confirms that two soldiers have gone missing.

"Two International Security Assistance Force service members departed their compound in Kabul City in a vehicle on Friday afternoon and did not return," ISAF said in a brief statement.

"The unit dispatched vehicles and rotary-winged assets to search for them and their vehicle, and the search is ongoing."

The obvious questions is, of course, why did two soldiers leave their base without being part of a larger unit? There is something more than a little suspicious about the circumstances. Hopefully they'll be recovered alive and their COs will be able to question them about that.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:00 PM | Comments (3)

June 29, 2010

Eco-Friendly Terrorist Killing

Environmentally-conscious jihadists will be thrilled to discover that the U.S. Army will now be now be shooting at them with "green" ammunition:

The Army announced today it has begun shipping its new 5.56mm cartridge, the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, to support warfighters in Afghanistan.

The new M855A1 round is sometimes referred to as "green ammo."

The new round replaces the current M855 5.56mm cartridge that has been used by U.S. troops since the early 1980s.

The M855A1 resulted in a number of significant enhancements not found in the current round, officials said. They explained these include improved hard-target capability, more dependable, consistent performance at all distances, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash and a higher velocity.

During testing, the M855A1 performed better than current 7.62mm ball ammunition against certain types of targets, blurring the performance differences that previously separated the two rounds.

The projectile incorporates these improvements without adding weight or requiring additional training.

According to Lt. Col. Jeffrey K. Woods, the program's product manager, the projectile is "the best general purpose 5.56mm round ever produced."

"The best general purpose 5.56mm round ever produced."

I can't decide... is that an oxymoron?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:30 AM | Comments (7)

June 23, 2010

Selfless Warrior

President Obama's hand-picked general to lead the war in Afghanistan barely held ground against the Taliban, and was losing the bureaucratic battle to Obama's even more inept civilian appointees; an incompetent ambassador, a clueless national security advisor, and of course, a defeatist President. Instead of losing Afghanistan due to incompetent Democratic leadership, Gen. Stanley McCrystal fragged his civilian leadership and his career, to open the door for the next general and give him a chance to win where McCrystal was not allowed.

Into this gap steps General David Petraeus, the general who broke Sunni and Shia insurgencies in Iraq and ended the war there are clearly as any insurgency can ever be defeated.

Most will applaud General Petraeus' decision to take command in Afghanistan, as it seems logical to have the architect of one counterinsurgency success take over what appears on the surface to be a similar effort.

But what most will not realize is that General Petraeus demoted himself to lead this war. The general who led Americas' efforts in the entire region is stepping back down to take over one grinding, thankless campaign.

By doing so he risks his legacy. He risks defeat in a land where outsiders have battled and lost for a thousand years. But he knows—better than any of us—that he is the best man to lead this fight. If anyone can win this war, he can.

God be with you General, and those in your command.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:42 PM | Comments (1)

June 22, 2010

CNN: McChrystal Submits Resignation

Not confirmed, but not out of line.

Now, if we can get a replacement that actually allows our soldiers and Marines to shoot the enemy...

Via MediaLizzy on Twitter.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:56 PM | Comments (5)

June 21, 2010

Free Speech Meets Democratic Arson

Robert Stacey McCain seems to think he figured out why people become Democrats.

I'm not convinced that is the whole truth, but it does help explain why some folks get so fired up when called out for their delusional beliefs.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:31 AM | Comments (0)

June 17, 2010

Eighth Tarheel Terror Suspect Captured in Kosovo

Still one to go:

Kosovo police on Thursday arrested an ethnic Albanian man suspected of having supported a planned terrorist attack in North Carolina, they said Thursday.

Bajram Asllani, 29, a native of Mitrovico, Kosovo, was arrested following an extradition request from the United States, police said. He faces charges of providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons.

An April 19 criminal complaint unsealed Thursday alleges that Asllani conspired with eight men charged last July with plotting a series of terrorist attacks overseas and securing weapons and training in North Carolina.

Seven suspects – Daniel Patrick Boyd, 39, his sons, Dylan Boyd, 22, and Zakariya "Zak" Boyd, 20, and Hysen Sherifi, 24, Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, 22, Ziyad Yaghi, 21, and Anes Subasic, 33 – are being held in the U.S. An eighth suspect, Jude Kenan Mohammad, 20, is believed to be in Pakistan.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:10 AM | Comments (0)

June 09, 2010

Obama's Love Letter to Terrorism

Dear Gaza,

You elected a terrorist group to lead you. You cheered as they threw screaming rivals from the tops of buildings onto the streets below with a sickening thud, amassed weapons to carry out their chartered goal of the genocide of the Israeli people, and provided exquisite "poor me" theatrics to the media worthy of a Tony award, even as they raked in millions from selling stolen aid shipments on the black market.

For creating all this, when you could have taken the easy way out and chosen peace and prosperity, you deserve an award.

How does $400 million sound?

With all my love,

Barack

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:11 PM | Comments (17)

June 08, 2010

Idiot: NJ Jihadist Was "Death to All Juice" Guy

D'oh.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:14 PM | Comments (0)

June 05, 2010

Turkish Terrorist Autopsies Suggest They Were Shot By Their Own Men

First the spin, then the facts:

Nine Turkish men on board the Mavi Marmara were shot a total of 30 times and five were killed by gunshot wounds to the head, according to the vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine, which carried out the autopsies for the Turkish ministry of justice today.

The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

The findings emerged as more survivors gave their accounts of the raids. Ismail Patel, the chairman of Leicester-based pro-Palestinian group Friends of al-Aqsa, who returned to Britain today, told how he witnessed some of the fatal shootings and claimed that Israel had operated a "shoot to kill policy".

He calculated that during the bloodiest part of the assault, Israeli commandos shot one person every minute. One man was fatally shot in the back of the head just two feet in front him and another was shot once between the eyes. He added that as well as the fatally wounded, 48 others were suffering from gunshot wounds and six activists remained missing, suggesting the death toll may increase.

The new information about the manner and intensity of the killings undermines Israel's insistence that its soldiers opened fire only in self defence and in response to attacks by the activists.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Let's get some facts straight, shall we?

Less than a dozen Israeli soldiers armed with paintball guns and sidearms fast-roped to the deck of the Mavi Marmara, where they ran into a buzzsaw of Turkish mercenaries wearing ceramic body armor and armed with metal rods, knives, and yes, firearms. That the lynch mob was armed with guns was confirmed by the ships own captain, who saw them throw overboard as Israeli reinforcements arrived.

Each soldier in the initial boarding party was surrounded upon touch-down, and tackled by groups of Turkish zealots. All told, estimates are that between 60-100 thugs pounced upon the handful of soldiers. Three of the soldiers were severely injured before the last soldier on the helo even hit the deck; two had been shot by the terrorists, and a third soldier had had his head smashed open with a metal rod. Three other soldiers had ben knocked unconscious and dragged below decks in hopes of making them hostages.

A maximum of four soldiers fired killing shots into the lynch mob. We know this because the Israeli Staff Sergeant that was the last soldier on deck killed six of the nine with his sidearm, a Glock pistol. Because of their position, all shots were straight on at close range, into the heads and chests of their charging targets.

But that does not match what we see the Turkish corner's forensics tells us, Indeed he adds quite a bit of new and useful information to the story, that the media can't spin its way out of, no matter how hard they try.

The corner speaks of his mercenary countrymen being shot from behind, in the back and back of the head. Since the Israeli soldiers at this time had been forced back into a single small defensive position as the lynch mob continued to advance with weapons in a frontal rush, this strongly suggests that at least half the rounds that hit Ibrahim Bilgen and Fulkan Dogan were fired by their fellow mercenaries behind them.

The other dead bore similar wounds, with shots to the head from the front (fired by the Israelis) and shots to the back from behind, most likely fired by other terrorists.

We know well from previous encounters in Gaza and Lebanon that Israel's enemies think nothing of killing their own in order to blame the Jews for their deaths.

This is simply the first time that an unwitting coroner on their side has given us medical evidence that those killed died at their countrymen's hands.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:07 PM | Comments (14)

June 04, 2010

Who Paid the Turkish Terrorists on the Mavi Marmara?

The Jerusalem Post ran an interview today with one of the Israeli soldiers that attempted to search the blockade runner Mavi Marmara as it attempted to breach the join Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza strip.

The soldier in question was the senior-most noncom on the mission, and the last soldier to fast-rope down to the ship from the helicopter hovering overhead. By the time he hit the deck, two more senior officers had already been shot by Turkish "peace activists" wearing heavy ceramic body armor, and a third officer was severely injured after having his skull crushed with the heavy rods some of the terrorists were using as weapons.

The soldier has the other commandos form a defensive perimeter around their wounded comrades, and when the terrorists pressed their attack, they opened fire to keep from being overrun. The soldier in question killed six of the nine Turkish terrorists killed in the attempted blockade running with his handgun at point-blank range.

When the ship was finally captured and brought into port, the attackers were found to have large sums of money upon them; apparent payment for the pre-planned assault. According to the captain of the Mavi Marmara, the Turks were armed as well, and fired shots at the Israelis. He apparently watched the terrorists throw their weapons over the side of the ship, and forensic teams located shell casings that did not match Israeli weapons.

Turkish terrorists/mercenaries (chose the terminology you like best, as both would seem to apply) were paid substantial amounts of money by someone to stage an international incident, attacking soldiers simply attempting to enforce a blockade of an enemy port where ships loaded with hundreds of tons Iranian weapons had previously attempted to dock.

The question I have is whether or not turkey's increasingly Islamic government had a hand in staging this incident, and if they did, whether they are the kind of "ally" the United States or NATO really needs.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:37 AM | Comments (7)

June 03, 2010

Turk Born in America Was One of the Aggressors In Blockade Runner Assault; More Ships Coming

Furkan Dogan was born to Turkish parents and left our country at the age of two, apparently never to return. While technically holding citizenship, he is a birthright American only, an accident of geography and in no obvious way attached our nation's culture. To call him an American is something of a joke.

Dogan was one of the nine Muslim terrorist sympathizers killed as they tried to lynch Israeli soldiers carrying out an inspection of their ship, a ship attempting to run a blockade of Gaza. News accounts claim that Dogan was shot in the head four times and once in the chest. The shot placement and other known conditions of the raid suggests Dogan was attacking Israeli soldiers at point-blank range when he was killed.

Israel and Egypt have maintained a joint sea blockade of Gaza because of legitimate concerns that Iran is attempting to provide the terrorist group Hamas with long-range rockets to destabilize the region and target Israeli civilian population centers. Late last year the MV Francop was intercepted carrying small arms ammunition, rockets, grenades and artillery shells from Iran to Gaza.

The MV Rachel Corrie, a decrepit one-time beer hauler, is part of the next group of ships attempting to run the blockade. Named after a leftist radical and pro-terrorist sympathizer killed by a bulldozer attempting to protect Hamas weapons-smuggling tunnels, the Corrie is thought to be carrying cement, one of the materials that Israel and Egypt do not allow to be imported into Gaza because of concerns that Hamas will use the building material to construct hardened bunkers.

Other materials being carried by the vessel are already in abundance in Gaza, supplied over far more practical land routes.

The Irish-flagged Corrie, like its namesake, isn't providing anything of value to the people of Gaza, and merely provides a small degree of political cover to a genocidal terrorist group.

Update: The Corrie turns around... for now.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:58 PM | Comments (17)

Shock: Muslim Claims Israel Faked Weapons Recovered During Blockade Runner Raid

TIP: If you are going to accuse a government of faking photos of weapons and military material captured during a legal search of the vessel carrying the contraband, you should probably make sure they don't also have video of the ship and the weapons as well.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:07 AM | Comments (6)

May 21, 2010

Politically-correct ROE Seeks to Turn Afghanistan into Beirut

God forbid we send out soldiers into battle with loaded weapons:

Commanders have reportedly ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol in a manner that could handicap them.

Some soldiers are being ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, The US Report has learned from an anonymous source at a forward operating base in Afghanistan. Our source was unsure if the order came from his unit or if it affected other units.

On war correspondent Michael Yon's Facebook page, commenters stated that this is a common practice in Iraq, while others said that it is occurring in Afghanistan as well. According to military protocol, "Amber" status requires weapons to have a loaded magazine, but the safety on and no round chambered.

"The idea that any combat unit would conduct any operation, including patrolling and even manning a security post -- in which direct action may-or-may not take place -- and not having weapons loaded, borders on being criminally negligent in my opinion," says Lt. Col. W. Thomas Smith Jr., a recognized expert on terrorism and military/national defense issues. "This is nothing more than infusing politically correct restrictions into already overly restrictive rules of engagement. And this PC nonsense is going to get people killed."

I wonder how high up this order originated, and with good reason. The order to put the Marines in Beirut on "amber" status is rumored to have come when then Senator Joe Biden became infuriated when he visited the base and found that the guards were armed with locked and loaded weapons.

This email came to me from a Marine roughly two years ago:

I am a former Marine, having served from '78-'86 When the barracks in Beirut went down, three Marines I knew went with it. Two were Marines I had attended a school with, and were acquaintances at best. The third was a Marine captain that had, immediately before his mission in Beirut, been my company executive officer.

Many years later, I met another former Marine who had been a senior NCO there. We began to exchange stories of our time in the Corps, as former Marines are prone to do. When the subject of the Middle East arose, he told me a disturbing tale. In a nutshell, Biden, a few weeks before the bombing, had visited the barracks. He had a fit at the defensive posture of the unit, which had prudently set up barricades, automatic weapons emplacements, etc. Per Biden, they were not deployed as appropriate to their "peacekeeping" mission - too warlike, and "sending the wrong message."

He demanded that the fortifications be dismantled. The senior NCO on the scene respectfully reminded the senator that he was not in the chain of command. After throwing a tantrum, Biden and the rest of the congressional fact-finding mission left for home. A few days later, word came down from the Pentagon to comply with Biden's instruction. Evidently, Biden had located a spineless officer at the Pentagon. Also included in the order were some changes to the ROE (Rules of Engagement) that slowed response to any attacks. (Marines were not allowed to keep their weapons loaded) The one Marine, a young lance corporal, who was able to fire on the truck as it headed toward the barracks was only able to do so because he had kept his weapon loaded in spite of the order, after the unit first sergeant had hinted he would turn a blind eye. This is the same young Marine, that suffering from survivor guilt, took his own life shortly after.

I was unable to confirm this story at the time, just as I am unable to confirm it now. We do know, however, that our troops in Afghanistan are faced with absurd rules of engagement created by REMFs (I'll let you look that up on your own), bureaucrats, and politicians like those presently in power.

It appears they won't be satisfied until they get our soldiers and Marines massacred... again.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:11 PM | Comments (8)

May 15, 2010

Religion of Peace Attacks Cartoonist... Again

Let them have their way in all things, or face their violent wrath:

The home of a Swedish artist who once drew a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad as a dog has been hit by a suspected arson attack, police said Saturday.

Lars Vilks, who lives in Nyhamnslage in southern Sweden, was not at home during the attack late Friday night and no one was reported injured.

It was the latest in a week of attacks on the 53-year-old cartoonist, who was assaulted Tuesday by a man while he lectured at a university and saw his Web site apparently attacked by hacker on Wednesday.

I've long tried to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt, hoping that despite 1,300+ years of evidence to the contrary that it was extremists that misunderstood or perverted Islam that were the root of Islamic terrorism and suppression.

But that simply isn't the case, it it?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:58 AM | Comments (6)

May 05, 2010

Bomber Admits Terror Motive

Shahzad, who rather infamously hates George W. Bush, was inspired to bomb Times Square by the drone attacks he saw carried out against the Taliban in Pakistan on the orders of the Obama Administration:

It was payback.

The Connecticut man charged yesterday with the botched Times Square car bombing confessed to trying to slaughter innocent people in retaliation for US drone attacks that wiped out the leadership of his beloved Taliban, The Post has learned.

Admitted terrorist Faisal Shahzad -- who copped to training in explosives in the past year with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the leading extremist Islamic group in his native Pakistan -- said he was driven to evil by the slew of deaths among leaders of the terror group, law-enforcement sources revealed yesterday.

His training came in a tribal area where American drone aircraft have pummeled members of the Pakistan Taliban and al Qaeda in the past year.

The article goes on to mention that the current Administration is downplaying Shahzad's motive, no doubt hoping to stem of the chorus of "I told you so!" yips from his anti-war left flank. Obama has not only validated the Bush Administration's use of drone warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but escalated it significantly with brutal effect.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:32 PM | Comments (3)

May 04, 2010

Comfortably Dumb

David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars makes an asinine and snarky post this morning about the capture of Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, writing:

The next time you hear some right-winger (most notably Dick Cheney) sneer at the Obama administration's "law enforcement approach to terrorism," remember this.

Neiwert is either dumb as a post, or worse, assumes his readers are.

The law enforcement approach to terrorism that conservatives disagree with concerns terrorist events and suspects outside of U.S. territory.

Many liberal Democrats prefer to treat international terrorism as an international law enforcement matter, a laughable strategy considering the ideological (and occasional state) support many terrorists receive in the countries they use as their base of operations. The military approach—which, I hasten to add, has been largely adopted by the Obama Administration because it works—involves surveillance and military interdiction instead of arrest warrants. The Predator drones strikes inside Pakistan that have stepped up under Obama, and occasional raids in the Horn of Africa, are perfect examples of this in practice.

I defy Neiwert to product anyone—former Vice President Dick Cheney included—who calls for military strikes on American soil against suspected terrorists. No, we trust our federal, state and local law enforcement officers to use their expertise to track down terrorists on American soil, and they did just that in this instance, and admirably well.

Niewert is abusing a strawman. Worse, he's insulting the intelligence of his readers.

Or at least I hope he is.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:24 AM | Comments (9)

Arrest Made in Times Square Terror Attack

The usual suspects:

Federal authorities arrested a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent Monday night at New York's JFK International Airport in connection with Saturday's attempted Times Square car bombing.

The man was identified as Faisal Shahzad, of Connecticut, Attorney General Eric Holder said. Shahzad was attempting to board a flight to Dubai at the time of his arrest, Holder said.

A total of three people were taken off the flight, but information is scarce about the other two.

And the Taliban video claim? It was posted from Connecticut as well. As it starred known Taliban, that video claim that this was a Taliban attack seems even more solid than earilier.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:12 AM | Comments (11)

May 02, 2010

Taliban Claims Responsibility for Times Square Bomb Attempt

Let's see Mayor Bloomberg continue to downplay this:

A top Pakistani Taliban commander took credit for yesterday's failed car bomb attack in New York City.

Qari Hussain Mehsud, the top bomb maker for the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, said he takes "fully responsibility for the recent attack in the USA." Qari Hussain made the claim on an audiotape accompanied by images that was released on a YouTube website that calls itself the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan News Channel.

The tape has yet to be verified, but US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal believe it is legitimate. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan News Channel on YouTube was created on April 30. Officials believe it was created to announce the Times Square attack, and Qari Hussain's statement was pre-recorded.

"This attack is a revenge for the great & valuable martyred leaders of mujahideen," Qari Hussain said. He listed Baitullah Mehsud, the former leader of the Pakistani Taliban who was killed in a Predator strike in August 2009, and Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the former leader of al Qaeda Islamic State of Iraq who was killed by Iraqi forces in mid-April. And although he was not mentioned, an image of Abu Ayyub al Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was also displayed in the images accompanying the audiotape.

You can view the video yourself at The Long War Journal. I don't think we can emphasis enough that this has every appearance of being a legitimate Taliban attack inside the United States, plotted overseas, and not the work of an isolated homegrown jihadi acting on his own initiative.

The bomber obviously has access to the explosives and vehicles as they are extremely common components. The question now is whether the bomber has orders to make a second attempt.

(h/t AllahPundit on Twitter)

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:24 AM | Comments (24)

Possible Fuel-Air Explosive Terrorist Attack In Times Square Goes Awry

I'm just getting up to speed on the news of a failed terrorist attack in New York City' Times Square, where authorities responded to the scene of a smoking vehicle after calls about an explosion, and found the bomb:

Police officers from the emergency service unit and firefighters flooded the area and were troubled by the hazard lights and running engine, and by the fact that the S.U.V. was oddly angled in the street. At this point, a firefighter from Ladder 4 reported hearing several "pops" from within the vehicle. The police also learned that the Pathfinder had the wrong license plates on it.

Members of the Police Department’s bomb squad donned protective gear, broke the Pathfinder's back windows and sent in a "robotic device" to "observe" it, said Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, the police department's chief spokesman.

Inside, they discovered three canisters of propane like those used for barbecue grills, two five-gallon cans of gasoline, consumer-grade fireworks — the apparent source of the "pops" — and two clocks with batteries, the mayor said. He said the device "looked amateurish."

Mr. Browne said: "It appeared it was in the process of detonating, but it malfunctioned."

I'm going to disagree with the Deputy Commissioner, and suggest there is nothing amatuerish about this bomb. I agree with Allahpundit that appears the 3 bulk propane tanks and 10 gallons of gas were to be the explosives in a fuel-air explosive, one of the deadliest weapons in modern warfare. While not as polished as those used by mlitary forces (including our own), the explosive power of these devices in IED form are fierce, as a burster charge spreads a flammable cloud of fuel, that is then detonated by a secondary charge to form a massive overpressure wave that is extremely lethal.

This particular device seems to have failed because the bomb builder simply got his chemistry slightly askew, and had the fuel air mix inside the vehicle too low (which I somewhat doubt), or more likely, had too much fuel in the cabin of the vehicle so that the potential bomb didn't have the air it needed to breath and detonate properly. If the fireworks had ignited when the fuel-air mixture was optimum, we'd be reading a story of carnage this morning like those we've seen in Iraq, with hundreds dead.

They need to find the individual terrorist or terrorist group behind this and fast, because odds are that they now know exactly what they did wrong with this bomb, and they are not likley to make the same mistake again.

Update: South Park related? The evidence is thin, but it isn't entirely unreasonable.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:35 AM | Comments (5)

April 19, 2010

Top AQI Terrorists Killed

It has taken several years of hard work, but the top two leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have been confirmed killed in a joint U.S./Iraqi operation:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki announced Monday that two top insurgent leaders had been killed, including a somewhat mythic figure who has operated under the name Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. Mr. Baghdadi has been reported dead or detained several times previously, and his very existence had been called into question a few years ago by American military leaders.

After Mr. Maliki’s press conference, the American military released a statement verifying that Mr. Baghdadi was killed in a joint raid between Iraqi and United States forces in the dark hours of Sunday morning near Tikrit, near Saddam Hussein’s hometown.

Also killed, according to Mr. Maliki and American officials, was Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, also known as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a largely Iraqi group that includes some foreign leadership.

The simple fact of the matter is that al-Baghdadi was a fictional character when he began, and was a voice played by an actor. Later a former officer-turned-terrorist picked up the moniker, and it is this second al-Baghdadi that was killed.

al-Masri's death was the most important of the two, but it was nice that both were terminated together, which should serve to fragment the group further.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:42 PM | Comments (1)

April 05, 2010

Tangos Down: WikiLeaks Misrepresents Apache Assault on Medhi Army Militia

WikiLeaks has posted video of what they decided to frame as "collateral murder."

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the strict rules of engagment our soldiers and aviators follow, and who took the time to pay attention to the audio and video, cannot be swayed by the deceptive rhetoric offered up by WikiLeaks. While the video below confirms the deaths of two Reuters employees and the wounding of two children, it also confirms the presence of weapons within the first few seconds of the video playing.

Two Reuters employees made the mistake of joining a ragtag group of Muqtada al Sadr's Medhi Army militia, some of which were still clearly armed, with at least one folding stock AK-pattern assault rifle (3:41, top left) and an RPG-7 (3:44, second from top left) antitank rocket carried by men at the rear of the group (the Reuters employees were near the front) in the video that WikiLeaks chose to show us.

As for the father who made the tragic mistake of trying to intercede in a hot combat zone with dust still rising and blood flowing... I admire his courage, but question his intelligence. He put his children in harm's way, and broke laws of war that civilians in their fifth year of war should have known by rote.

People die in war, and those who die aren't always combatants. It sucks.

But it isn't a crime.

We would all be better off if some of those who decided to opine about things they don't understand would withold their ignorant commentary so that those who do understand can cut through the deception offered by WikiLeaks' editorializing.

Update: Dan Froomkin, fired from the Washington Post for too-liberal bias, captures the idiocy we're seeing from terrorist defenders in just two short paragraphs:

Two crewmen share a laugh when a Bradley fighting vehicle runs over one of the corpses...

[snip]

...The helicopter crew, which was patrolling an area that had been the scene of fierce fighting that morning, said they spotted weapons on members of the first group -- although the video shows one gun, at most. The crew also mistook a telephoto lens for a rocket-propelled grenade.

The vehicle than ran over what appears to be human remains in a vacant lot filled with trash and rubble was decidedly not a 27-ton Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), a tracked personnel carrier similar to a tank, but was instead a much smaller 4-wheeled Humvee, as is obvious in the video.

Froomkin, who can't tell a tank from a truck, wants us to believe he has the discernment to tell a telephoto lens from a grenade launcher carried by a different individual at the rear of the group in the opening of the video (3:44, top of frame, second man from left).

Update: Got a call from BBC Radio, and may be on World Have Your Say between 1:00-2:00PM ET to discuss this story.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:57 PM | Comments (21)

February 22, 2010

Joe Stack's Daughter Calls Him a "Hero"

In case you've already forgotten the name, Joe Stack was the man who set his house on fire last week, and then suicide-crashed his small plane into a building containing IRS offices in Austin, TX, killing Stack and Vernon Hunter, an IRS employee.

Samantha Bell, Stack's daughter, considers him a hero. Sorta:

The daughter of a man who crashed his small plane into an Internal Revenue Service building called her father a hero for his anti-government views but said his actions, which killed a tax service employee, were "inappropriate."

Joe Stack's adult daughter, Samantha Bell, spoke to ABC's "Good Morning America" from her home in Norway. Asked during a phone interview broadcast Monday if she considered her father a hero, she said: "Yes. Because now maybe people will listen."

It sounds like someone is living in what we here at CY like to call a "community-based reality." I think it is normal for most well-adjusted people to hold a somewhat idolized view of their parents, even as they know that they are far from perfect. But when one of your parents spends the better part of his life making the same bad decision over and over again, and then decides that his bull-headedness is justification to try to murder a building full of people, it's time to shake off that idealized view, and realize that you know, Dad was a real prick.

Dennis the Peasant, an accountant by trade, didn't know Stack in person, but certainly has had his fill of the type. I have no reason to doubt Dennis' insights. Stack was a crank and tax cheat, who blamed others for his failures.

The tax code is a mess, and is in drastic need of reform. I think everyone outside of the Beltway can agree on that. But problems with the tax code—and multiple attempts to defraud it—aren't grounds for mass homicide.

And Joe Stack is anything but a hero.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:50 AM | Comments (7)

February 20, 2010

Finally, Some Common Sense Out of Holder's Justice Department

While it is sure to cause many a lefty to wet themselves, John Yoo and Jay Bybee have been cleared of any wrong-doing in their post 9/11 work providing legal advice on enhanced interrogation techniques. It's refreshing to see that even a Justice Department as corrupt and biased as this one hasn't been able to criminalize honestly argued opinion, even though they certainly tried.

Jennifer Rubin, who has followed this fare more closely that I, dissects the decision, and makes the case that if Holder really wants to prosecute those in Justice who have done wrong, he should start by investigating his own people.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (5)

February 19, 2010

Obama Appoints Nine Terrorist Lawyers to Justice

You've got to be kidding me.

If Byron York is correct, the CIA needs to start flying Reapers over Eric Holder's terrorist advocate-filled Justice Department:

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

At least nine Obama-appointed terrorist lawyers work in the very department that is supposed to be trying to put them away behind bars. This strikes me as a conflict of interest whether or not these appointees recuse themselves from cases involving their (hopefully former) clients.

Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:57 PM | Comments (6)

January 08, 2010

There Are No Coincidences

A U.S. solider deployed in Afghanistan captured the mastermind of the attack that killed his cousin three years before. When TankerBabe says she got chills hearing this story, I can understand why.

Via Thunder Run.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)

January 02, 2010

Xe Contractors Killed In CIA Attack

Via WRAL:

Two CIA contractors killed in a bombing in Afghanistan Wednesday were employed by North Carolina-based Xe, formerly known as Blackwater, according to CNN.

A former intelligence officer told CNN that two of seven deceased worked for the private security and training firm based in Moyock, a small community in Currituck County.

The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the bombing at a former military base on the edge of Khost city, the capital of Khost province, which borders Pakistan and is a Taliban stronghold. Six other CIA workers were wounded.

It would be interesting to know what services the Xe contractors were performing. Theoretically, security for government employees would have been their primary role. Just as obviously, that security was breached.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:51 AM | Comments (3)

January 01, 2010

Obama The Appeaser May Have Violated Executive Order Against Negotiating With Terrorists

I completely missed this story yesterday, where Bill Roggio noted that the Obama Administration fell into a trap laid by Iranian-backed extremists, and released terrorists that killed American soldiers:

The US has released the leader of an Iranian-backed Shia terror group behind the kidnapping and murder of five US soldiers in Karbala in January 2007.

Qais Qazali, the leader of the Asaib al Haq or the League of the Righteous, was set free by the US military and transferred to Iraqi custody in exchange for the release of British hostage Peter Moore, US military officers and intelligence officials told The Long War Journal. The US military directly implicated Qais in the kidnapping and murder of five US soldiers in Karbala in January 2007.

"We let a very dangerous man go, a man whose hands are stained with US and Iraqi blood," a military officer said. "We are going to pay for this in the future."

The US military has maintained that the release of members and leaders of the League of the Righteous is related to a reconciliation agreement between the terror group and the Iraqi government, but some US military officers disagree.

"The official line is the release of Qazali is about reconciliation, but in reality this was a prisoner swap," a military intelligence official said.

The Brit released in this uneven exchange was purposefully kidnapped to be used as swap-bait, and our American Chamberlain showed he was precisely the cultured rube they expected.

Today, Roggio follows up by noting that Obama may have violated an executive order issued by Ronald Reagan that expressly forbid negotiating with terrorists.

To the best I can determine, there are two possible answers to the question of whether or not Obama violated National Security Decision Directive Number 207.

The first possible answer is that yes, the Administration did violate the Directive. If that is the case, I'm not sure what the ramifications could or should be. I suspect that even if criminal laws were broken by the White House, the Holder Justice Department would not seek to prosecute. In the unlikely event that they would prosecute, you can be assured that a lower-level staffer would be the fall guy.

The other possible answer—and perhaps the more likely one—is that shortly after taking office President Obama issued an executive order of his own that authorizes negotiations with terrorists.

Whether he broke the Reagan-era directive or cravenly issued a secret one of his own, the fact of the matter is that our nation's enemies know that taking hostages is now a viable option to win concessions with this President.

Hell of a job, Barry.

Hell of a job.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:08 PM | Comments (6)

December 31, 2009

Houston Wets Itself Over Glorified Pipe

Read this story and you'd think that Houston Police ran across a terrorist with heavy-duty, anti-tank weaponry.

It isn't until you get to almost the end of the article that they finally reveal that the "rocket launcher" is nothing more or less than a fiberglass tube.

Prosecutors said there are no state charges for having the unarmed launcher or possessing Jihadist writings, unless they contain some type of threat.

The former director of Houston's FBI office said rocket launchers can be dangerous if they're in the wrong hands.

"I don't know any other use for those weapons except in combat," Don Clark said. "I've had them in combat, used them in combat. That's what they are used for."

The weapon is the warhead and rocket; the tube is a single-use disposable item.

So one of two things happened here. This jihadi wannabe acquired a used (and therefore useless) AT-4 tube (probably via an online aution like this one), or he bought the Airsoft version.

I'm quite sure it can be terrifying. It just simply isn't a weapon, no matter how much drama the media attempted to stir up here to justify the amont of time they spent on this story.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:27 PM | Comments (4)

December 27, 2009

Terrorist Not Only One With Pants On Fire

I'e been offline spending time with family over the past few days and so I'm behind the curve on the story of the terrorist that tried to detonate a bomb on a flight about to land in Detroit. The attempted detonation of a PETN device with a nitroglycerine detonator failed. Instead of bringing down the airliner, the explosive misfired and burned instead of exploding. A Dutch passenger is credited with being a hero for his actions in the immediate wake of the failed attack for subduing the would-be terrorist, but the simple fact of the matter is that if the device had functioned properly, the plane would have likely gone down, killing hundreds. Quite simply, God and bad chemistry was on our side.

It was therefore quite revolting to see DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano claim that "the system worked." The system was an utter and unmitigated failure.

The system allowed one of the most dangerous explosives known to man—one known to be a favorite of al Qaeda—aboard a flight into the United States in sufficient quantity to destroy a plane in midair. The device used one of the oldest known and most common explosives in the world as a trigger as well. As for the bomber himself, he was a known al Qaeda affiiliate who had been turned in by his own father for his extremism.

In what way, Janet Napolitano, did Homeland Security "work" when it let a known terrorist fly into the United States with a bomb strapped to his body?

The simple fact of the matter is that our security measures failed once again, and the DHS secretary is trying to cover for a group that repeatedly fail in their primary mission, while wasting time and energy and focus in attempts to demonize her political opponents.

The DHS failed, and failed miserably. Perhaps if they spent more time attempting to hunt down terrorists, and less time trying to smear Americans that don't like Barack Obama, terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wouldn't be able to make it onto US-bound flights in the first place.

Jonah Goldberg wants Napolitano fired, but I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. Looking at this Administration's raft of failed and marginally competent appointees, do you really expect that any replacement nominee would be any less ideologically-drive or more effective?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:58 PM | Comments (10)

December 22, 2009

Camouflage FAIL

The British are breaking out a new camouflage pattern for the first time in 40 years, as their standard issue DPM (Disrupted Pattern Material) isn't faring well in the varied terrain of Afghanistan, where soldiers have to shift from sun-washed arid desert backdrops to the deeper and darker colors of lush green river valleys within the same mission. Instead of helping hide British troops, their current uniforms were making them stand out. The new uniforms, however, won't hide the poor material support British soldiers are otherwise receiving.

The new pattern is based upon Crye Multicam, a pattern originally developed for the U.S Army that was shelved in favor of the digital Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) currently being worn by the Army... which is the same pattern that is failing American soldiers in Afghanistan.

Now the U.S Army is taking a second look at Multicam, along with different and darker version of the current UCP.

My advice?

Better start stocking up on the discount flecktarn camo from your local Army/Navy store, before Uncle Sam recognizes the deal and buys it all up.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:08 PM | Comments (5)

December 14, 2009

Beyond Doubt: Iran Working on Nuke Trigger

There is no more point in denial:

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme...

[snip]

"Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application," said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. "This is a very strong indicator of weapons work."

And there is little doubt that when Iran has what they consider "enough" nuclear weapons, they will not be used to deter war, but to trigger Armageddon.

It seems our dithering President has a very simple choice.

He can be remembered as the American President who did nothing, the President that let Iran build nuclear weapons and trigger a nuclear exchange with Israel that killed tens of millions, including hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and civilians in the region. Barack Obama—the man who did nothing and watched the world burn.

Or Obama can be vilified by his left fringe as a warmonger, and try to use military force to deny Iran the last few critical components that separates them from becoming the world's more dangerous nuclear-armed regime.

I don't envy his decision, but given the choices, it still seems to be rather easy one.

Update: Sky News claims it has confirmed the authenticity of the evidence:

Sky News foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall said: "Sources confirm that the document is genuine. However, the Government and the US will be reluctant to wave it about just yet.

"There's three weeks to go until President Obama's end-of-the-year deadline for his policy of engagement with Iran.

"The big push for sanctions will not begin until January. No-one wants to pre-empt that."

Dither, dither, dither...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:09 AM | Comments (6)

December 11, 2009

Horrors! NT Times Slams CIA/Blackwater for... Poor Project Managment Skills

The New York Times is still deeply involved in fighting the ghosts of President's past, trumpeting the headline, Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret Raids by the C.I.A.

Considering the hype, I was expecting something explosive—maybe they helped snatch potential terrorists off the streets of Cairo, or maybe even here in the U.S.—or at least something mildly titillating.

Instead, the Times delivers this:

Private security guards from Blackwater Worldwide participated in some of the C.I.A.’s most sensitive activities — clandestine raids with agency officers against people suspected of being insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and the transporting of detainees, according to former company employees and intelligence officials.

Really? This is the big story? While the confirmation that Blackwater operatives might have participated in raids in combat zones is newsworthy, it isn't exactly surprising, is it? That they've also escorted detainees being transported from one location to another is frankly boring.

But maybe there's more too this story than the lede suggests.

The raids against suspects occurred on an almost nightly basis during the height of the Iraqi insurgency from 2004 to 2006, with Blackwater personnel playing central roles in what company insiders called "snatch and grab" operations, the former employees and current and former intelligence officers said.

Now, that is a bit more interesting. They were engaging almost nightly, and played central roles. The C.I.A. partnering with mercs... sounds like a thousand B-rated action movies, but hey, I like those.

Let's see what else they've got.

Several former Blackwater guards said that their involvement in the operations became so routine that the lines supposedly dividing the Central Intelligence Agency, the military and Blackwater became blurred. Instead of simply providing security for C.I.A. officers, they say, Blackwater personnel at times became partners in missions to capture or kill militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, a practice that raises questions about the use of guns for hire on the battlefield.

Okay, NYT. You had me, and then you lost me.

If I understand this right, the Blackwater guys weren't originally a planned part of the raids, but were there playing security for the C.I.A. guys much as they did the State Department. At some point, there was the need for an extra active participant or more in the raid, and the Blackwater guys, being former military and there were the obvious and logical choice to step in.

I can see a logical (and quite human) progression from being an impressed team member who stepped in as part of his overarching mission to protect his principle (which seems to arguably still be within the scope of his assignment), to the more murky and politically problematic normalized use of Blackwater guards in these missions. There is certainly what the project managers among us with recognize as "scope creep," but the Times still isn't giving us much meat. Were the guards involved in overwatch roles, setting up a perimeter? Or were they intimately active in the actual door-kicking, room-clearing, Tango-bagging searches themselves? If so, to what extent? Did they shoot anyone the shouldn't have? Did they shoot anyone, at all?

The Times doesn't tell us. That seems to be a very important distinction to make if the newspaper is going to level charges of wrong-doing. Lacking that, the story seems to fall flat.

Indeed, a close reading of the story leaves the reader more perplexed than informed. The Times writers certainly set a dark and ominous tone, but what they delivered was anti-climatic.

Other than vague insinuations of wrong-doing and the rehashing of historical events involving the company—stories the paper has already covered ad nauseum—there seems to be very little actual substance in what the authors present .

Scope creep? Really? That is the big story?

If I didn't know better about the Times stellar reputation for politics-free, objective reporting, I might be tempted to offer up an allegation of my own. If I were so inclined, I might suggest they were offering up a red herring to their readers... perhaps to distract them from the sort of things the editors might not want their readers thinking about.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:09 AM | Comments (8)

December 07, 2009

Nuke-Crazed Dwarf Claims America is More Powerful Than Islamic Jesus

At least that is what Ahmadinejad is claiming between his "treatments" at Tehran's Madhi Ali Small Engine Repair and Psychiatric Institute to Dubai-based Al Arabiya.

Ahmadinejad reportedly claims he has documented evidence that the U.S. is blocking the return of Mahdi, the Imam believed by Muslims to be the savior.

"We have documented proof that they believe that a descendant of the prophet of Islam will raise in these parts and he will dry the roots of all injustice in the world," Ahmadinejad said during a speech on Monday, according to Al Arabiya.

"They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

Ahmadinejad continued the rant by claiming there have been plots by both the West as well as countries in the East to wipe out his country, according to Iranian news Web site Tabak.

"They have planned to annihilate Iran. This is why all policymakers and analysts believe Iran is the true winner in the Middle East," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the site. He also alleged that foreign nations seek to control Iran's oil and natural resources.

For those of you not familiar with Ahmadinejad's religion, he belongs to a radical Shia sub-cult that even camel-sex-approving Ayatollah Khomeini thought was nuts. The mad dwarf's belief is that his messiah will only return after the world is burned in a cleansing fire, and somehow America is blocking their trip to Paradise. If it sounds to you like someone is laying the groundwork for a mass suicide to put Jonestown to shame, then you are on the right track.

When you understand their belief system is premised on triggering a nuclear war that obliterates their country in order to jump-start their End of Days and trip to Paradise, then you understand why Iran's fanatical leaders are so driven to obtain nuclear weapons.

It also showcases why our ignorant President is running us full-speed towards a nuclear war with his failure to even attempt disarming them preemptively with all necessary measures. Cowardice always leads to greater casualties than standing up for what is right.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:10 PM | Comments (3)

November 28, 2009

Russian Train Destroyed by Terrorist Bomb

The express train carrying passengers from Moscow to St. Petersburg was derailed Friday, killing 30 and injuring at least one hundred. Russian authorities claim that have found a blast crater and chemical residue that indicates the train was targeted in an act of terrorism, using homemade explosives equivalent to 15 pounds of TNT.

If homemade explosives were used I would be surprised to find out if it was anything other than triacetone triperoxide (TATP), an old standby for terrorists that was perhaps most infamously used in the London subway bombings.

No one has publicly taken responsibility for the blast, and a motive remains unclear at this time.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:29 AM | Comments (1)

November 24, 2009

So Much for Brotherly Love

A second set of potential terrorists was charged with attempting to buy arms in Philadelphia in as many days.

Three Lebanese nationals and one American resident were charged today with attempting to obtain 1,200 M-4 military assault weapons for Hezbollah, the second set of such charges in as many days generated in Philadelphia.

U.S. Attorney Michael L. Levy declined to say if the government informer who penetrated the alleged smuggling ring was the same person cited in yesterday's allegations that a man connected to Hezbollah tried to obtain Stinger anti-aircraft missiles for Hezbollah, as well as M4s.

But the individuals charged are not the same.

"We are dealing with two different groups trying to buy M4s," he said.

Idiots. They should have simply asked for a stimulus grant.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:45 PM | Comments (3)

November 18, 2009

Broken Minds

This observation from Tom Maguire has haunted me since last night.

As he told us last Friday, Eric Holder wants to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian courts because he (mostly) attacked civilians, while the attackers of the USS Cole will be sent to a military tribunal. The Dallas Morning News explained:
There is no contradiction here: military courts for attacks on the military, civilian courts for attacks on civilians.

OMG. And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?

How bizarre is Holder's logic? First, why give more rights and more protections to a terrorists who targets civilians? Secondly, the court ought to be determined by the nature of the defendant, not the nature of the victims - if KSM is an enemy combatant he deserves a military tribunal regardless of who he was crafty enough to target.

I've long disagreed with the underlying ideology of the Obama Administration, which is based upon the philosophies of those men who replaced his father in his life. Radical left-wing ideologies like those the President learned from his mentors—Frank Marshall Davis (communist), Bill Ayers (Marxist), Jeremiah Wright (racist black liberation theology, Marxism), etc—have never led to anything other than misery for the wretches that survive it.

But Obama and his subordinates compound the errors of these diseased ideologies by adopting another failed ideology, one that acts as if the open warfare of Islamic fascism is a civilian law enforcement problem. That flawed thinking already led to horrors of 9/11. Why are our President and Attorney General so dimwitted that they desire to repeat those mistakes and put the lives of Americans at greater risk?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:35 AM | Comments (18)

November 12, 2009

The Convictions of a Coward: Obama Fails to Choose and Chooses to Fail on Afghanistan

Barack Obama knows nothing of military strategy or tactics, doesn't understand counterinsurgency, and holds a barely-disguised contempt for the military. I guess it shouldn't be surprising, then, that the President has rejected all options for winning the war in Afghanistan presented to him:

After months of deliberating, President Obama opted not to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The Obama Administration sat silently by and enabled what most believe to be a fraudulent reelection of Karzai, and now wants to use his reelection as an excuse? That's like watching an arsonist douse a house in gasoline, only to complain later about the smoldering rubble being a blight on the neighborhood.

Karzai is a starwman, and a pathetic one at that. On two separate occasions in recent we've noted a remarkable counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan that bypasses Karzai's corrupt central government altogether, and works with the real arbiters of power in Afghani society, the tribes. One Tribe at a Time (PDF) is a blueprint for winning the Afghan war, and with a smaller footprint to boot.

The Administration could easily adopt this plan, but refuses to consider it an an option. Considering it removes their self-inflicted strawman of an ineffectual and corrupt central government that largely doesn't exist outside of Kabul.

Jim Hanson, retired SF operator and Director of the Warrior Legacy Institute, notes:

He has already had the advice of his entire military chain of command with a near unanimous call for for reinforcements to move to the strategy that won in Iraq. We have watched as he has heard from the deep wisdom of Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel. We have seen him dither and quibble and show a completely ineffectual and uncommitted face to our enemies and the rest of the world. Now months after his hand-picked commander has told him the situation is bad and getting worse, our troops in the field fight and die without the support of their Commander in Chief. He sent 21,000 more brave men and women there and now they are flappin' in the breeze. How can a squad leader look his men in the eyes and tell them to saddle up and head out on a patrol, perhaps to be the last to die for a cause their President no longer believes in?

Quite clearly, Barack Obama has decided against winning the war in Afghanistan, showing his long history of claiming that the Afghan war is the right war, and the war we must win, to be a bald-faced lie he repeated to get into office.

He is steeling himself for surrender, hunting for excuses to fail. And the rubes that believed he was anything other than a self-loathing defeatist have nobody but themselves to blame for electing him.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:08 AM | Comments (13)

November 05, 2009

Fort Hood Shooter ID'd

With the release of two other possible suspects, it is now starting to look like the shooting at Fort Hood today was the work of a single man, armed with two handguns. He was named as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who ironically specialized in treating traumatic stress, and who was angry about having to deploy to Iraq at the end of November.

Like another mass murder who targeted young adults, Hasan went to Virginia Tech.

Figures.

Update: Breaking news as of 10:00 PM is that Hasan did not die, and is in custody in stable condition.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:16 PM | Comments (35)

Terrorist Attack on Fort Hood

There is breaking news of what sounds like a terrorist attack on Fort Hood.

Early reports are citing 7 dead, 12 wounded, and one shooter taken into custody and another still possibly on base. Some accounts claim there is a third suspect.

While there is no word yet on who is responsible, this sounds very similar to various plots by homegrown Islamic terrorist cells, such as the Willow Springs cell arrested in North Carolina in July.

One gunman may have been killed

Updates as they come in:

Number of wounded revised to 15, and perhaps as many as 20.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram says suspects were armed with M-16s. that could just as easily mean civilian AR-15s, as well.

The shooters are possibly soldiers?

Two suspects captured, four SWAT team members wounded.

FBI rules out terrorism. I think what they meant to claim is that this wasn't the work of an Islamic terrorist cell or an attack by domestic extremists. By any measure, this was a terror attack, no matter who the shooters or victims were.

Casualty figures have grown to 9 dead and 30 wounded.

12 KIA, 31 WIA, shooters confirmed as soldiers, at least one of which had a "Arabic-sounding name".

Briefing:


Twelve people were killed and 31 wounded in a shooting at Fort Hood on Thursday, officials confirmed.

Ford Hood spokesman Sgt. Tim Volkert said the shooting occurred at 1:30 p.m. A military briefing at 4 p.m. said three assailants, all soldiers, fired shots at the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center and the Howze Theater next to it.

The facts of the story have solidified. Thee was one shooter, an American Major who used two handguns. Details here.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:41 PM | Comments (8)

October 29, 2009

Ghosts of Campaigns Past

Earlier this week I read and commented upon Special Forces Major Jim Gant's proposal for winning the Afghan war, One Tribe At a Time (PDF). Gan't proposla was based upon his highly successful engagement as the leader of a Special Forces A-team that won the confidence of and became regarded as part of a Pushtun tribe.

Gant's approach suggests using smaller teams of highly-trained and highly-supported soldiers and have them assimilate into Afghanistan's Pashtun tribes to combat the Taliban with minimal but immediate assistance, both monetary and military, as needed.

David Adams and Ann Marlowe reach a similar conclusion in the Wall Street Journal today, noting that more troops applied improperly actually seems to make attempts at providing security counterproductive:

We saw how this could work in the Tani district of Khost starting in 2007. By assisting an ANA company—with a platoon of American paratroopers, a civil affairs team from the U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Team, the local Afghan National Police, and a determined Afghan subgovernor named Badi Zaman Sabari—we secured the district despite its long border with Pakistan.

Raids by the paratroopers under the leadership of Lt. Col. Scott Custer were extremely rare because the team had such good relations with the tribes that they would generally turn over any suspect. These good tribal relations were strengthened further by meeting the communities' demands for a new paved road, five schools, and a spring water system that supplies 12,000 villagers.

Yet security has deteriorated in Khost, despite increases of U.S. troops in mid-2008. American strategy began to focus more on chasing the insurgents in the mountains instead of securing the towns and villages where most Khostis live.

The insurgents didn't stick around to get shot when they saw the American helicopters coming. But the villagers noticed when the roads weren't built on time and the commanders never visited.

It doesn't take much more more than a scan of the current headlines to know that the application of the current strategy is not working. We also have multiple sources with boots-on-the-ground experience suggesting what certainly sounds like the same approach to a much more intimate, smaller-scale engagement, with real-world results supporting their positions.

No doubt General McCrystal has his reasons for wanting 40,000 troops, just as Joe Biden has his own (quite daft) reasons for wanting to fight a drone war.

But generals and politicians have historically had problems correctly fighting the war in front of them, haunted by ghosts of campaigns past.

Let's hope our current commanders are capable of avoiding that trap.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:16 AM | Comments (1)

October 27, 2009

The Generals Trap

Memeorandum is abuzz over this article in the Washington Post. It seems that a former Marine Captain with combat experience in Iraq who had joined the State Department in the Zabul province of Afghanistan resigned in September becuase of waht he viewed as a pointless war.

The official, Matthew Hoh, wrote in his letter of resignation:

"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan,"' he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

Mr. Hoh is far from being the only American with questions about how we are executing strategy in Afghanistan, and for that matter, in Pakistan. As Michael Yon has been warning for over a year, things in Afghanistan are not going as well as they have in Iraq. We're not winning. We may be losing. All that seems certain is that whatever we are doing now isn't working.

There are more opinions that I can cite on what people want us to do in Afghanistan.

There are know-nothing defeatists on the left that desire an American defeat as a mark against President Bush's legacy. Such a view is perverse, but not unexpected from those that became enslaved to a singular hatred over eight years that have turned them into little more than Gollum, trapped in what one fevered progressive blogger described as "one long, sustained scream."

Opposing them are those with more rational reasons for advocating for policies of withdrawal or various strategies that refocus on continuing the effort.

U.S. General Stanley McCrystal wants to commit a much larger American force of 40,000 to attack the Taliban in what some are referring to as the Afghan Surge, likening it to the military operation in Iraq that did much to bring the country to a relative level of stability and enabled U.S. forces to mostly withdraw to supporting roles.

Others such as Vice President Joe Biden, want to reduce the U.S. footprint within Afghanistan and snipe at Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists with Hellfire missiles fired from the ever-present Predator UAVs circling overhead in some area.

And of course, all of our engagement strategies hinge on collaborating with an Afghan government that means almost nothing outside of Kabul.

But there is no guarantee that either increasing our conventional ground forces nor reeling them back in and remotely targeted suspect foes will affect any sort of meaningful change in the remote regions of Afghanistan. The tribes have defeated and outlasted armies that have fought with much greater ferocity and less regard for human life for longer periods of time. The enemy knows that they do not have to defeat us in battle. They can simply afford to watch us burn ourselves out.

That is not to say that the war is unwinnable. We just need to take a fresh look at how the human terrain is different in Afghanistan, and rededicate ourselves to fighting the current war, and not fall into the ever-present generals trap of fighting the last war.

For all intents and purposes, the American war in Iraq is over, and we won. We deposed a dictator, foundered in a bloody insurgency and near civil war over a number of years, before alighting on a strategy that fit the war. Once those tactics were discovered and put into widespread use, the bulk of the insurgency collapsed or was coerced into giving up, leading us to a current state where American forces spend their time on base or in training roles, and the Iraqi government has become a more or less functional state. Terrorist attacks like the double vehicle bombings of several days ago still spread terror and mayhem, but no overtly longer threaten the stability of the state. There is now hope from politicians and generals of using the lessons learned in Iraq to fight the Afghan war.

But the commanders and politicians have learned the wrong lessons.

They focus on the strategy and tactics of military conflict and diplomacy between governments because that is how they are comfortable thinking. They seek to apply what they think they learned in Iraq, while forgetting how they learned.

They learned from "boots on the ground" who found out what worked by living with the population and learning that mastering the human terrain is far more important than building firebases.

One man who seems to understand the human terrain in Afghanistan better than most is U.S. Army Special Forces operator Major Jim Gant, who was deeply and personally embedded with his team in Mangwel, Konar Province.

Based upon his experiences in Afghanistan, Major Gant wrote about the concept of winning the war through tribal engagement in One Tribe at a Time (PDF).

Regular readers of Confederate Yankee know that I commented frequently about the conflict in Iraq during it's most trying times, but that I've been almost silent on Afghanistan. The reason is simple: I had few contacts there, and little understanding of the nature of the people or the conflict. I wasn't going to opine on a war that I simply don't understand in the slightest.

Thanks to One Tribe at a Time I have a far greater understanding of at least Major Gant's view of how to conduct the war. While I'm open to hear other opinions, his experience and the course he advocates sounds like an approach at least worth studying.

I have a suspicion that if we continue to listen to just the politicians and generals, we may once again stagger on with the wrong strategy, creating a war that we cannot win because our greatest adversary is ourselves.

(h/t Instapundit)

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:06 PM | Comments (6)

September 11, 2009

Still Raw, Still Visceral

Eight years later, all I can clearly remember is the sinking feeling in my gut and the unnaturally blue skies we had in the Hudson Valley that morning.

This says so much more than my words can.

Via Instapundit, on Facebook.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:23 AM | Comments (3)

August 25, 2009

Democratic Strategist Involved in Bombing

Going with the Bill Ayers model of community activism, I guess.

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

I'll be very interested to see how today's revelations about various left-wing bomb plots will raise a cry in the media about the dangers of left wing terrorism... you know, the kind the Southern Poverty Law Center can't be bothered to Google up a fake report about for the Justice Department to disseminate as propaganda.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:52 AM | Comments (1)

Must be One of Those Right Wing Terrorists

Ready it quickly, before Katyanne Marie Kibby's threat to murder a bomb plot informant goes down the memory hole:

A Texas woman faces trial this month in Austin on charges she threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated an Austin-based group that planned to bomb the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., last fall.

Katyanne Marie Kibby, 25, was indicted in June by a federal grand jury in Austin. She is accused of retaliating against Brandon Darby, the community activist-turned-informant who helped federal prosecutors win convictions against Bradley Neal Crowder, 24, and David Guy McKay, 23.

Prosecutors say the e-mail threat was made Jan. 10. That was two days after Crowder reached a plea bargain with federal prosecutors in Minneapolis for his role in the plot to build Molotov cocktails and attack the GOP convention in September 2008.

Crowder and McKay were part of a group of activists that had gone to the Twin Cities to take part in street demonstrations. The FBI had infiltrated the group with Darby. Crowder and McKay built eight of the gasoline firebombs but didn't use them, a fact law enforcement officials credited to Darby.

Members of the Austin protest community heaped scorn on Darby, saying he had betrayed longtime friends and colleagues.

Note that the Statesman mentions the target of the bomb plot was Republican, but declines to state to which political affiliation the bomb-building activists subscribe.

As Glenn Reynolds notes, it's all about protecting the narrative.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2009

"War Ramping Up"

From Michael Yon, two hours ago with no further explanation:

On the move but will Twitter this right now!

War ramping up here in Afghanistan.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:40 PM | Comments (10)

August 04, 2009

Unhinged, or a Terror Suspect

A 53-year-old Quogue, NY woman has been charged with third degree trespassing—not exactly national news.

That she was arrested while snapping pictures at the perimeter of an Air National base and was found armed with a shotgun, semi-automatic Bushmaster XM15 (and M4-style carbine) and over 500 rounds of ammunition is something that should be getting this story quite a bit more attention that it has so far.

The end of the story seems to hint that authorities think she might have psychiatric problems, but that doesn't mean she was any less of a potential threat.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:00 PM | Comments (0)

July 30, 2009

I Kill You!

Rusty notes that they've found the Facebook page of one of the Tarheel terrorist-wannabes from Willow Springs. He has the pictures, but I have the video.

Follow along until the end... you'll get a bonus North Carolina tie in, the payoff for martyrdom that perhaps Danial Boyd was really hoping for.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:11 PM | Comments (1)

July 29, 2009

NY Times Botches Complaint Against NC Jihadists

Lets see if you can catch the false and repeated refrain from the newspaper of record:

The three men, along with four others, are charged with stockpiling automatic weapons and traveling abroad numerous times to participate in jihadist movements. There is no indication in the indictment that they were planning attacks in the United States, though prosecutors said they had practiced military tactics this summer in a rural county close to Virginia.

...

Federal officials in Washington said that the men charged on Monday were not seen as serious terrorist threats to the United States or American interests abroad, and that there were no indications of ties to Al Qaeda or other militant groups. But the officials said there was concern that they were amassing a sizable number of automatic weapons, given Mr. Boyd’s record as a foreign fighter.

If you guessed that there weren't any automatic weapons involved in this case, you guessed right.

As noted in some detail yesterday, the indictment cites the exact firearms owned by Daniel Boyd, and not a single one of them was an automatic weapon. The weapons cited in the indictment were 8 intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifles, 2 semi-automatic battle rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver.

So much for those multiple layers of fact checkers...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:29 PM | Comments (6)

July 28, 2009

The Guns of the Terrorists Next Door

As you may know, seven men in Willow Springs, NC have been detained on terrorism charges, and an eighth man is still at large.

It's a bit shocking that Islamic terrorists could be hiding in plain sight in a small Southerner town, but that appears to be exactly the case.

And for such a small cell of just eight men, they seemed to be working on a sizable cache of weaponry according to the indictment, including 8 intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifles, 2 battle rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver.

I've categorized them by name, type, and date purchased below:

WeaponTypeDate Purchased
Bushmaster M4A3AR-type semi-automatic rifleNov. 9 2006
Ruger Mini-14Semi-automatic rifleMar. 13, 2007
Mossberg 100 ATRBolt-action rifleNov. 3, 2008
Llama Comanche III.357 RevolverNov. 3, 2008
Century Arms AK SporterAK-type semi-automatic rifleNov. 6, 2008
Ruger Mini-30Semi-automatic rifleNov. 11, 2008
Saiga .308Battle Rifle, Semi-automaticFeb. 11, 2009
Century Arms Polish TantalAK-type semi-automatic rifleMar. 2, 2009
Century Arms C91Battle Rifle, Semi-automaticMar. 31, 2009
Century Arms M70B1AK-type semi-automatic rifleApr. 3, 2009
Ruger Mini-14Semi-automatic rifleApr. 3, 2009
S&W M&P15AR-type semi-automatic rifleApr. 3, 2009

The M70B1, which was not linked, is just another run-of-the-mill fixed-stock AK-style rifle.

You may note that the AR- and AK style rifles are what our politicians have labeled "assault weapons," even though they are not assault rifles by any military definition. Prohibitionists may be quick to point out that the AK- and AR- rifles were some of those banned under the Joe Biden-authored abortion known as the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. This is the same ineffective law that our President and Attorney General would like to have reinstated.

The Saiga 308 purchased by Boyd is built upon the exact same AK action, fires a cartridge with the same rate of fire and having both far more range and power.

The two Ruger Mini-14s and Ruger Mini-30 in this arsenal use the same cartridges and have the same range and rate of fire as the AK- and AR- pattern rifles, and they were never subject in any way to restrictions of the so-called "ban."

Nearly identical relatives of the Bushmaster M4 A3 rifle were available during the entire life of the so-called ban, and that if the Smith & Wesson M&P had been around at the time, a variant of it, too, would have likely been legal for civilian sale.

If Boyd had been interested in the other AK-pattern rifles that he amassed he could have purchased those during the ban as well, though he would have paid a premium for them. While illegal to import, the thousands already in circulation were entirely legal to buy and sell.

Tell me again how gun control "works"...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:05 PM | Comments (21)

July 14, 2009

Angel in Iraq

I don't have the words.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:07 AM | Comments (8)

June 23, 2009

Iranian "Moderate" Mousavi Belongs in Gitmo

Via Hot Air comes the news that the "moderate" Iranian opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi is the Butcher of Beirut, responsible for the terrorist attack on the U.S. Marine Corps barracks that killed 241 servicemen.

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

No matter who eventually prevails, the Iranian government will still continue their drive to build nuclear weapons. They will still fund terrorists. They will still train terrorists in their country to kill civilians in Israel. They will still train terrorists to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

What I didn't know at the time is that the Iranian opposition leader already had gallons of U.S. blood on his hands, and is by any rational measure is a terrorist.

Please tell me once again why which despot they put in power really matters to me... or you.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:51 PM | Comments (7)

June 10, 2009

White Supremacist Attacks Holocaust Museum; Guard Killed, Shooter in Critical Condition

Left wing blogosphere filled with smug satisfaction.

By now I'm sure you have heard the news that 88-year-old white supremacist James W. von Brunn attacked the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC today. Security officer Stephen Tyrone Johns died confronting Brunn, who was in turn struck down by return fire from another security officer. Because of the professionalism and quick response from the Museum's security team, no patrons were injured in the attack.

I'd ask you to please consider praying for the Johns family and the soul of Officer Johns, who gave his life protecting his fellow citizens.

Sadly, and with tedious predictability, opportunistic left-wing bloggers triumphantly rushed to use the attack as a political bludgeon.

Taylor Marsh's response was typical, proclaiming the attack as vindication for a shoddily-written document released by the Department of Homeland Security and initially defended by DHS Janet Napolitano before she was forced to retract it in embarrassment.

Marsh began gloating before Officer Johns was even cold:

We have a real escalation of domestic terrorism unfolding in the United States. Something Janet Napolitano warned about in her homeland security report, for which Republicans eviscerated her. She was ringing the warning bell, which as we've seen lately was fully warranted.

Of course, Marsh's hopeful vindication of Napolitano is based upon wishful thinking, and bears little resemblance to reality.

The DHS report was panned—and later withdrawn—because the report was heavily political in nature, unfairly tarring a broad set of conservative and libertarian values as being indicators of terrorist intentions, as exposed by Roger Hedgecock and Stephen Gordon, who cited offending passages including this one:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

It was the broad generalization of this report that earned it criticism, for casting a net so wide that it ensnared Americans with patently mainstream ideas, such as thinking that the government exists to serve the people, or that a government needs to control its borders and favor its citizens over illegal aliens, or for believing that Constitutional Amendments are actually important.

The report cast a net broad enough that it encompassed both museum shooter von Brunn and infanticide doctor killer Scott Roeder. It was also broad enough that it would include almost every adherent of a mainstream religion, a significant portion of Congress, most of middle America, the entire Border Patrol, and the father of the 35th President, just to name a few.

Broad incompetence is not something to crow victoriously about as if were a virtue.

Except, perhaps, for certain apologists for incompetence.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:51 PM | Comments (10)

June 02, 2009

An Ideologue's World

The flash was blinding and disorienting, and Hassan dropped to his knees as a roar like the end of the world shook the ground under him. The sky over Jericho dimmed and he turned west to see a mushroom cloud rising above Tel Aviv... or where Tel Aviv once was.

A song began to rise in his heart at the death of the Jews, but it hung as he saw the contrails of high-flying Israeli jets streaking overhead toward Damascus and Tehran.

"The Shia have killed us all," he whispered, and he sat down to die.

For now, this vision of the end of the Cradle of Civilization— the realization of the so-called Samson option by a dying Israel in response to an Iranian nuclear strike —is fiction.

Our President, however, seems unwilling to take repeated Iranian threats to destroy Israel at face value, just as he ignores that nation's continued development of long-range missiles and nuclear warheads.

He pretends to believe that Iran has a need or desire for peaceful nuclear energy instead of the beginning of Armageddon. His is a childish belief of a man who has never been a leader but has always been an ideologue in a political movement cowed by an irrational and suicidal belief of moral equivalence between good and evil when it admits that they even exist at all. He says we cannot impose our values—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—on nations with murderous histories and hate-consumed cultures.

Better to let them live out their fantasies of genocide, no matter how many millions die, than be a man who has to make difficult decisions.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:57 PM | Comments (12)

Where King's Bill Would Have Failed

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the American Muslim convert that shot two local soldiers outside of a Little Rock military recruiting station, was on a FBI watch list after all, not that it did any good:

The suspect arrested in the fatal shooting of one soldier and the critical injury of another at a Little Rock, Ark., Army recruiting booth today was under investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force since his return from Yemen, ABC News has learned.

...

Officers who searched the car found more than 100 rounds of ammunition, an SKS assault rifle, two pistols, and two military books.

The ammunition was loaded in magazines which were found in a vest, police sources say.

You can expect at least lip service for Peter King's H.R.2159: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 to pick up steam in the wake of the Little Rock attack that killed soldier William Long and the killing of an infanticide specialist in a Wichita church the day before.

Denying terrorists the means by which to carry out their attacks is something we can all get behind on both sides, but I can't find anything in King's bill to suggest that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad or Scott Roeder would have been effectively denied access to firearms even if King's proposed bill was already established law.

Roeder's Freemen fringe is known to be well-armed and not prone to having any respect for federal laws—indeed, the defining characteristic of this and similar groups is that they do not respect federal authority—and I rather doubt King's proposed law would be the one they decided to follow.

Likewise, Muhammad could easily obtain arms via other, non-legal means.

As it stands, I haven't seen law enforcement or media reports that established how either of these domestic terrorists obtained their firearm. That said, we do know that another law, however well-intentioned, would not have been the slightest impediment to these killers.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:12 AM | Comments (4)

June 01, 2009

African-American Muslim Convert Guns Down Two Soldiers at Little Rock Recruiting Station

The political apparatus behind Homeland Security is obviously not tracking the right extremists:

A Muslim convert who said he was opposed to the U.S. military shot two soldiers outside an Arkansas recruiting station, killing one of the soldiers, police said Monday.

"This individual appears to have been upset with the military, the Army in particular, and that's why he did what he did," Little Rock Police Lt. Terry Hastings said in a phone interview.

"He has converted to Muslim here in the past few years," Hastings said. "To be honest we're not completely clear on what he was upset about. He had never been in the military."

Hastings identified the man in custody as Carlos Bledsoe, 24, of Little Rock, who was going by the name of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad.


It seems like it was just within the past few weeks—because it was—that another group of African-American Muslim converts attempted to carry out terrorist attacks against American citizens.

Has anyone heard of Homeland Security or the Justice Department issuing warnings to law enforcement agencies to be looking for signs of suspicious activity from this very specific pool of potential terrorists? Before they struck twice in the past two weeks, I mean.

I'd love to hear from those of you in law enforcement if such a warning had been issued.

I'd hate to think that our current Presidential Administration would rather ignore the uncomfortable realities of real terrorist threats in favor of playing to the comforting silence of identity politics... but considering President Obama's ties to certain terrorists/authors and the 20 years he spent in the congregation of a racial separatist church, I wouldn't put it past Dear Leader, either.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:04 PM | Comments (8)

May 29, 2009

Obama Holds Israeli Helicopters and Weapons Integration Hostage, Benefiting Hamas and Putting Civilians at Risk

In a move that a cynic might note may be designed to save their $900 million investment in Hamas, the Obama Administration has stepped in to block the sale of six Apache helicopters to Israel and also stopped the integration of the Spike missile system with the Apache's millimeter wave radar.

The Obama administration has blocked Israel's request for advanced U.S.-origin attack helicopters.

Government sources said the administration has held up Israel's request for the AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter. The sources said the request was undergoing an interagency review to determine whether additional Longbow helicopters would threaten Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.

"During the recent war, Israel made considerable use of the Longbow, and there were high civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip," a source close to the administration said.

What a naked, ideologically-driven crock.

Obama's Administration, which apparently has little knowledge of or use for military systems, does not seem to grasp that the use of the Longbow's mast-mounted sensor suite enables it to more carefully select targets that other variants of the Apache, which in and of themselves are a better targeting, surveillance, and attack system than most alternatives.

Nor do they seem to grasp that the close air support function of helicopters with lighter weapons loads is less likely to cause the collateral deaths of civilians than other weapons systems that would have to step into the suppression role that helicopters typically occupy.

Artillery units (in Israel, typically 155mm self-propelled howitzers) fire salvos of "dumb" high explosive or incendiary shells that either burst above the target (spraying shrapnel over a wide area), point detonate on impact, or less frequently, on a time delay that lets them penetrate structures before exploding. But artillery is not designed to be a precision weapon, and Obama's decision could force the Israeli's to use this area weapon, directly putting civilian lives at risk.

The other option for the Israeli's if these Apache's are out of the picture are "fast movers" such as the F-15i and and F16i, fighter-bombers armed with bombs weighing hundreds or thousands of pounds. While they can be armed with precision weapons, the warheads on these munitions are typically larger than those of helicopter mounted weapons. Once again, this creates a situation where the Israeli's are boxed into a less-than-optimal weapons system and put civilians at greater risk of death because of an ignorant decision made by a neophyte's Administration trying to play hardball not with an enemy, but an ally.

The net result is that Obama's short-sightedness and inexperience is potentially leading to a situation that will increase the collateral damage of Israeli strikes, even if the strikes are carried out with the utmost care, because Obama has blocked the sale and integration of the most precise and surgical weapons system available to handle the threat.

Instead of being able to target a Hamas rocket team that has retreated into the garage of an apartment building with a Longbow's precision gunfire or a pinpoint missile strike, Obama's decisions may lead to Israel being boxed into a position where their options are to respond with artillery strikes that run the risk of bringing down the building and spraying everyone nearby with shrapnel, or bombing the building with fighter aircraft armed with bombs large enough to flatten the building and kill everyone inside it.

Obama stupidly thinks that by denying Israel precision-strike capable aircraft and precisions munitions integration that Israel might not fire on the Palestinian terrorists he's provided more money to than anyone but Iran. He thinks he's protecting his investment. Israel, however, does not suffer terrorist rocket attacks on it's neighborhoods and schools, nor should they.

Those innocent Palestinians that may die as a result of this shortsightedness need look no further for a culprit that then man who hides behind the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

(h/t Bookworm)

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:05 AM | Comments (14)

May 22, 2009

Shocker: NY Muslim Terrorists Were Losers, "Intellectually Challenged"

More is coming out about the four Newburgh men who were arrested in a plot to carry out attacks on synagogues in New York City and shoot down C5 Galaxy transport aircraft at Stewart ANG base in Newburgh.

You'll hardly find it surprising that the terror team is bunch of dead-end convicts who converted to Islam in prison, and that none are a threat to join Mensa:

One is a petty criminal who spent a day in 2002 snatching purses and shooting at people with a BB gun from an SUV. His lawyer calls him "intellectually challenged."

Three have histories of drug convictions, one of them for selling narcotics in a school zone. The man prosecutors portrayed as the instigator of the scheme said he smoked pot the day he planned to blow up the temples.

In other words, if they hadn't decided to become terrorists, they would have fit perfectly in ACORN.

As it is, one of the uncles of the suspects feels that he knows where to place the blame:

"The Onta I know wouldn't do something like this, but the new Onta, yeah," said Richard Williams, an uncle. "He wasn't raised this way. All this happened when he became a Muslim in prison."

It's interesting how people who convert to just about any other religion in prison—say, Christianity as a popular choice—come out of prison and often use their newfound zeal as a convert to make something out of their lives.

A blogger friend of mine recently remarked in a private email (hence no name) about how her brother turned his life around after going to prison and finding God there. The one-time petty criminal and recreational drug user is now clean and sober and found a work ethic that has amazed his sister. He now owns a commercial landscaping company. He recently purchased ten acres of land with a pond, and just started building a dream home with his new bride. All of this occurred just six years after he walked out of the prison gates with nothing but his faith and support form his family. He gives all the credit for his phenomenal success in such a short amount of time to God.

If James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen has been successful in their quest to carry out murderous synagogue bombings in Riverdale and managed to bring down a C5 Galaxy carrying even part of its full fuel load of 332,500 pounds—enough to fill more than six railcars—and managed to burn a massive swath of their hometown to the ground—perhaps the massive jet veering into the 2,700 student Newburgh Free Academy (which is very near a landing jet's flight path) in the worst, worst case scenario—they would no doubt give all the "glory" of their massacres to Allah.

It is interesting, and sometimes insane what adherents of different religions think brings glory to their God, and worth noting that what these converts would have lauded as the will of their God parallels what we would expect from the will of Satan himself.

As for Masjid al-Ikhlas, the mosque these men shared on Washington Terrace in Newburgh, I'd like to hope that they were not involved in the plot in any way, or were working with the authorities in bringing down this band of murder-minded misfits. If they were encouraging jihad, however, I hope the authorities shut them down.

There is a freedom of religion in this country, but that stops when the individual practitioners or promoters of the religion use it to destroy the lives of others.

Update: And radicals they are. Phyllis Chesler does some digging and reveals the radical Islamist roots fo Masjid al-Ikhlas.

Perhaps Peter King or another New York politician should consider finding a way to close such radical centers that seem to do little more than condone and organize criminals to become indoctrinated mass murderers.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:52 AM | Comments (7)

May 21, 2009

These Are the Terrorists In Your Neighborhood

When I lived in Newburgh, New York I had a paper route that took me down Washington Terrace, an utterly forgettable section of road in an ugly part of worn-out town.

It's beena few years, but the mosque one source calls Masjid Al Jihad Al Akbar (the local paper calls it Masjid al-Ikhlas, but puts it at the same address) was a worn-looking Islamic Center on Washington Terrace that never seemed to have anyone around when I drove past. If news accounts are correct, the two-story building that may be the only mosque in Newburgh was most likely a link between four Muslim terrorists that were attempting to bomb synagogues in Brooklyn and try to shoot down aircraft with Stinger missiles at Stewart ANG base.

The FBI busted a homegrown terror cell late Wednesday night as the men sneaked around a Jewish temple in Riverdale planting what they thought was packages of C-4 explosives, sources told the Daily News.

The four African American men, three of whom were said to be jailhouse converts to Islam, also allegedly had what they believed was a working Stinger missile in their car.

Officials said they hoped to shoot down a plane at Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh in Orange County.

Sources said the four men were arrested after a year-long investigation that began when an informant connected to a mosque in Newburgh said he knew men who wanted to buy explosives.

FBI agents posing as militants sold them what they thought was 30 pounds of C-4 and a plane-downing Stinger missile.

The weaponry was all phony.

The ANG plane most often flown out of Stewart is the massive C5 Galaxy, on a predictable flight path that would make the plane a relatively easy target as it came in for landings from any of a hundred possible launch sites along Route 17K or Route 300, with easy escape routes to nearby interstates just minutes away.

I remember that after 9/11 some locals grumbled about wanting to burn down Masjid Al Jihad Al Akbar. In retrospect, if it is the mosque where terrorists came to plot, then finding some way to shut the mosque down certainly seems like an idea worth considering.

Update: Confirmed. The mosque's imam is an ex-con who di d a 12-year stretch for robbery and is the protegee of another Imam who was fired for praising the terror attacks of 9/11.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:09 AM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2009

Hustled: How Obama Deceived America About a Drawdown in Iraq and a "Surge" In Afghanistan By Playing With The Lives Of American Soldiers

This post from milblogger Greyhawk is a must-read.

It is relatively rare when we see a situation where people from both ends of the political spectrum and all points in between can unite for any reason, but using the lives of soldiers as political props is certainly one of them.

Here's the summary:

President Obama, apparently seeking to keep the anti-war left firmly under his spell, announced that he was drawing down American forces in Iraq, and was instead diverting forces who had trained specifically for an Iraqi deployment to Afghanistan.

Less than a month later, another unit's scheduled deployment to Iraq is sped up, in order to keep the same number of Stryker brigades in Iraq as there would have been if he hadn't shipped the other unit to Afghanistan.

The President ordered a unit that had trained for ten months specifically for the Iraqi mission to another part of the world that speaks a different language and has entirely different cultures. There is no easy way to determine on a Sunday night how many tens of millions of training dollars and man-hours Obama wasted by shifting this Stryker brigade, but if the Iraqi theater really didn't need them, it at least could have been understandable.

But the Iraqi theater clearly did need a Stryker brigade, and he planned on sending one all along.

We know this because just as soon as the Obama White House sold the drawdown story to the media and the anti-war left, he immediately and quietly ordered that another Stryker brigade—one that is no doubt capable, but one that didn't have the specific, intensive training of the unit diverted to Afghanistan— rushed to Iraq months ahead of schedule in order to keep the same number of Stryker brigades (two) as there has been the entire time.

There is no drawdown of Stryker brigades in Iraq.

President Obama lied to the American people.

He tried to con those who are against the Iraq war into thinking we were actually drawing down our capabilities there, when all he actually did was use a street-hustler's sleight-of-hand, having us watch one hand moving a unit out of Iraq, while using his other hand to deftly slide in another.

To borrow a phrase: you been lied to. Bamboozled. Run amok.

By a hustler who's been playing you the entire time.

And for those of us who know people in the military, be they friends or family, you should be absolutely livid at the callous disregard with which our punk of a President used the lives of two entire brigades of soldiers and their families as pawns.

The military life is never easy. Not ever. Our troops and spouses know that, and the kids, well, they learn to cope as best they can. There is always pride, but always uncertainty, and little things can make a difference for both the morale of the soldiers and those who carry on in their absence.

Knowing that our soldiers are highly trained for a specific mission makes them feel more confident of success, and more confident they'll have a better chance to come home. Having nearly a year's training wasted—and then finding out several weeks later that all that training was wasted because of political theater orchestrated to benefit your selfish Commander-in-Chief—well, I can only assume that hurts morale. Not just the morale of the troops, mind you, but that of their families, to see how little he cares about those he commands. And that's just the 5th Stryker Brigade.

The 4th Stryker Brigade's soldiers are being rushed to Iraq to keep two Stryker Brigades there. Did they get in all the specialized training they needed? They'll no doubt rush to get it done. But are those soldiers and their families being cheated of time together because Barack Obama is using them to play a cynical political game where he tries to lie to America about the wars we're fighting?

Absolutely.

Anyone who has done any research into who Barack Obama is, instead of who he likes to claim who he is, can't be very surprised that he would so cynically manipulate others for personal political gain.

What is surprising is how brazen his abuses are, and how quickly they've come.

Update: "It looks as if the Obama administration is so self involved, the only game it’s playing is a shell game with itself and the American people."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:17 PM | Comments (8)

February 24, 2009

Obama Administration Supports Hamas Rebuilding, While Shorting Anti-Terrorism Funding in Pakistan

We're still fighting a war against radical Islamic terrorism, and it already appears that our inept President has forgotten which side he's supposed to be on.

The Department of Defense's Security Development Plan for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, like the administration's $900 million Gaza aid plan, is directed at the heart of a terrorist haven. But the DoD initiative is directed at curtailing and/or cutting off terrorists from narcotics funding and undermining their stranglehold on and, to the degree that it exists, popular support of the local populations there. An alternative.

The Administration's Gaza reconstruction gift contains none of these counterterrorism dynamics. Not a one. There is but one ultimate distributor in Gaza: Hamas. The Obama administration can claim that "the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations," but the fact of the matter remains that the Hamas terrorist organization that dominates Gaza stands to gain from every penny. It most certainly will not be hindered. That equation is nowhere in the calculus.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:20 AM | Comments (11)

January 20, 2009

The Testing Begins

One thing America's enemies expect in Barack Obama is weakness, and they aren't wasting any time testing him:

Right now, man, lately, we've been under some INSANE level of incoming… like compared to 2004, not so much, but considering that when I got here, it'd been over 9-10 months since any, mind you, ANY rounds hit, and for like 3 days/nights in a row we've had between 2 to 4 incoming rounds.

Expect an uptick in attacks on American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere as terrorists and tyrants probe the incoming Obama Administration to see what the 44th President is made of.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:37 PM | Comments (10)

Hope. Change. Explosives.

I'm hoping this is a hoax:

A Massachusetts man stopped by police along the New Jersey Turnpike amid a suspicion that he was taking explosives to Washington, D.C., prompted a 25-mile closure of the highway east of Philadelphia on Tuesday evening.

At about 6:30 p.m., New Jersey State Police closed the turnpike at exit 1 through exit 4 as a precaution. State troopers, FBI agents and turnpike officials continued to investigate along the highway that leads south to Washington.

New Jersey State Police spokesman Sgt. Stephen Jones said troopers took a 27-year-old man into custody following a car stop in the southbound lanes of the turnpike near Exit 3 in Woodbury Heights.

Know who this benefits?

Mitt Romney.

Update: false alarm.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:28 PM | Comments (2)

January 07, 2009

Another Leftist/Islamist Lie Up In Smoke

It doesn't seem that we can have a conflict in the Middle East without pro-terrorist Islamists and Leftists in the world declaring that white phosphorus (WP) is a chemical weapon, and that the military force using WP is guilty of a "war crime" or "atrocity" for firing white phosphorus shells—never mind that that Islamist force targets civilians, uses their own population as human shields, and commits rape and torture with barbaric impunity to those they suppress.

Such apologist claims, almost without exception, based upon either radical politics, gross ignorance, or a combination of the two. In either event, these shrill claims are decidedly false.

A typical case of ignorance is the one I cited several days ago in the Pacific Free Press where the headline called the use of White Phosphorus by Israeli forces in Gaza the " War Crime du Jour."

Likewise, "Cernig," posting at Crooks & Liars, posted an equally inflammatory, fact-free and generally unhinged rant on the subject:

And there are good reasons to believe that the IDF is simply lying as part of a propaganda war it admits has been eight months in the planning: the use of indiscriminate white phosphorus airbursts, in contravention of international law as it is understood everywhere except the US and Israel (the 1980 Protocol III to the Convention on Conventional Weapons containsa blanket restriction on dropping incendiary weapons from the air against military objectives "located within a concentration of civilians"); the way in which the IDF is throwing explosives around so freely that almost as many of its people have been killed by its own "errant' tank shells as by enemy action.

Like most Leftists, Cernig is quick to pick and choose his atrocities of choice, completely ignoring that Hamas purposefully targeted Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets and mortar shells, in order for him to attack Israel by purposefully (and ignorantly) misconstruing what the laws of land warfare are, and what white phosphorus munitions are being used, and how.

The Israelis are not firing White Phosphorus incendiary weapons into Gaza.

This photo from Gil Cohen Magen two days ago shows Israeli 155mm M825A1 white phosphorus shells, with "M825A1" written clearly on the sides. I've cropping the image to focus on the M825A1 shells.

Update: A higher-resolution crop showing the shell markings more clearly.

Likewise, this photo posted today shows more Israeli 155mm M825A1 shells near a self-propelled gun.

Clearly, Israeli forces are using 155mm M825A1 white phosphorus shells in Gaza. But the white phosphorus shells they are using in Gaza are not incendiaries, and they are not being used in any way that can possibly be misconstrued as illegal.

Why?

Because the M825A1 is a smoke round.

From Global Security:

The M825 is a 155mm Smoke projectile used to provide screening or marking smoke. It is a separate loading munition using a hollow forged steel shell. The shape is ogival with a boat tail for aerodynamic efficiency and a welded steel baseplate. Close to the base is a gilding metal drive band protected by a grommet until just before loading.

The M825 White Phosphorus (Felt-Wedge) is a 155mm base ejection projectile designed to produce a smoke screen on the ground for a duration of 5 to 15 minutes. It consists of two major components, the projectile carrier, and the payload. The projectile carrier delivers the payload to the target. The payload consists of 116 WP-saturated felt wedges.After ejection, the WP felt wedges fall to ground in a elliptical pattern. Each wedge will then becomes a source of smoke. The projectile is ballistically similar to the M483A1 DPICM family of projectiles.

Smoke ammunition is a limited asset. Since ammunition requirements vary with each mission, observers should know the amount and types of smoke ammunition available and how many minutes of coverage it can provide. Extensive, planned smoke employment should be coordinated early with firing units to allow for redistribution or requisition of ammunition.

That's the short version.

The full article goes into far more detail about the nuance about the difference between the use of "quick smoke" and "immediate smoke" for battlefield missions, but one thing is painfully obvious—these are artillery shells and they contain white phosphorus, but they are not incendiary weapons, and they are not, by any remote measure, illegal to use in Gaza or anywhere else. They are smoke shells, used to create smoke screens.

The kind of white phosphorus artillery shells used as incendiary munitions are those called burster-type white phosphorus, and Global Security explains the difference between the incendiary and smoke rounds in sufficient detail .

The airburst Cernig and other terrorist apologists laments as an illegal attack is instead how a smokescreen is created to protect advancing soldiers. It is decidedly not an incendiary weapon, is decidedly not illegal, violating no laws or conventions.

Make no mistake—these apologists, Islamists and Leftists alike, are lying, pro-terror shills.

* * *

Few nations on Earth exercise as much care in waging a "humane" war as does Israel and the United States.

In this present conflict in particular the IDF has gone to extreme lengths to reduce collateral damage, from the careful selection of targets, to using precision-guided state-of-the-art weaponry to maximize the accuracy of their strikes, to using distinct weapons systems designed with different capabilities to use the absolute minimum of force to destroy terrorist targets, to even going to the extreme of phoning civilians near terrorist targets in order to evacuate them prior to attacks.

As Victor David Hansen notes, Israel has gone to historical lengths to protect a hostile civilian population, even as those hostiles openly back and publicly cheer terrorist attacks—more than 6,000 in recent years—that purposefully target Israeli civilians.

There is no moral middle ground here, but one of the most clear-cut battles between good and evil mankind is likely to ever see on this mortal plane.

If you side with Hamas, you side with evil.

Perhaps, then, I shouldn't be so surprised that so many of Hamas' apologists are so willing to lie for them.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:30 PM | Comments (20)

January 06, 2009

Sacrificial Wolves

It was only a matter of time—Israeli counter-battery radar isolated Hamas mortar shells as they rose, and a computer algorithm quickly did the geometry and isolated the GPS coordinates of the launch location before the terrorist-fired bombs even began their descent.

Israeli counter-fire aimed at the launch site was likely in the air before the Hamas-fired shells impacted near their target of Israeli civilians.

When the Israeli shells impacted the Hamas launch site—a school—the terrorists got just what they wanted.

Israeli forces fighting Hamas in the Gaza Strip struck a school run by the United Nations, killing at least 30 Palestinians hiding in the compound, a UN official said. Israel said it was returning fire from the school.

Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the UN Relief and Works Agency in Jerusalem, said in a phone interview he could confirm 30 dead and 55 injured, 15 critically, as the result of three Israel artillery shells hitting the school in northern Gaza.

The Israeli army said in a faxed statement late today that its investigations showed that "among the dead in the school were members of the military wing of the Hamas terror organization and a cell firing rockets and mortars at Israeli forces in the area."

Time and again, Hamas terrorists have fired weapons from schools, residential areas, hospitals, and mosques. Often these same sites have been used to store weaponry as well.

An Isreali drone captured a similar Hamas mortar attack launched from the exact same U.N. school two years ago.

Anti-Israeli hypocrites in the world’s media and Islamo-fascist states constantly cry that Israel is guilty of "war crimes" for returning fire against the aggression of various state-sponsored Islamic terrorist groups along its borders, and no doubt will rally against today’s casualties as an example of such.

What they will not admit—and perhaps ideologically, cannot—is that it is Hamas that is clearly guilty of multiple war crimes by any objective measure, as they continually embed militant forces inside civilian structures, population centers, and fire weaponry from within civilian enclaves that they use as human shields.

Perhaps equally as shameful is that the naked hatred of Palestinian culture towards Isreal is so extreme is that even non-combatants are more than willing to have themselves used as human shields, as they view the deaths of their own population as martyrs in a media war as an acceptable cost of attempting genocide against their Jewish neighbors.

Hamas militants did not have to force themselves into this school that recent reports suggest doubled as a weapons depot and firing position, nor in any of the dozens of residential neighborhoods, schools, mosques, and hospitals they’ve illegally weaponized in decades of terrorism. No, they were accepted willingly by Palestinians equally as bent on the destruction of Israel.

Indoctrinated by terror-loving, Jew-demonizing characters from birth on Palestinian television in a culture that lives to hate, fight, and die, there are no innocents here.

The high number of casualties in this particular incident suggests a similar patterns as in previous conflicts. Adoring Palestinians stood too close for too long after their terrorist heroes fired mortars at Israeli civilians. The Palestinians gathered around the launch site to watch munitions being fired against Israel simply didn’t anticipate the speed and accuracy of the Israeli response, and Israeli counter-battery fire detonating additional Hamas weaponry at the school only made the carnage worse.

There is a simple way out of such constant death and misery in Gaza for the Palestinians, a solution the Israelis had hoped for in 2005 when they pulled out of Gaza, giving the Palestinians a chance to form their own state, with their own government.

Instead of prospering and building a future for their children, they squandered their chance, choosing agony and a futile, constant war against an Israeli state that gave them a clear chance for peace and prosperity.

Hamas responded with violence.

All the dead of this war are on the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians that embrace and support them. There are no innocent lambs being slaughtered in Gaza.

Only the deaths of wolves.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:12 PM | Comments (7)

December 31, 2008

Ending Gaza

Let's put this bluntly: the Gaza Strip is a failed non-state run by terrorists pledged to genocide and dreaming of a second Holocaust. It has no discernible reason to exist other than to hate; no notable exports greater than the crude rockets and mortars targeting Israeli civilians for merely daring to exist.

Lets end it. It was a mistake. It's time to close Gaza.

Empty the 1.4 million Gazans living in squalor into the surrounding Arab nations who helped make it a modern Hell. Send them to Egypt. Syria. Jordan. Lebanon. Let these nations deal with the extremism they've midwifed by absorbing the bastard Arabs of the Middle East into their own societies.

Granted, such a repatriation will be welcomed by neither the Arabs of Gaza nor the nations who have to host the violent illiteracy and religious extremism they helped create.

But it is the only viable long-term solution for peace.

And an idea long overdue.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:19 AM | Comments (36)

December 30, 2008

IDF Starts Gaza YouTube Channel; Already Hit With Terms of Use Violations

The Isael Defense forces have started a YouTube channel to show the precision and care they are taking in destroying Hamas terrorist weapons dumps smuggling tunnels, and rocket launching sites located in residential areas by the terrorists. Hamas places the sites among homes and school in hopes that innocent civilians—particularly children—will be killed. Hamas can then use Palestinian and Arab cameramen with sympathies towards their cause to take pictures of the dead and wounded civilians for Hamas' propaganda war, which is typically waged via cameramen from Reuters, AFP, and the Associated Press.

Typically, as in the 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, these photos are stage managed to varying degrees, while a few are occasionally staged.

Some photos are staged by physically manipulating scenes for news photographers to photograph, though the primary way Hamas manipulates the media is to tightly control their access, limiting photographers to areas where they can take generally only take pictures of dead and wounded civilians and Hamas &qout;police," never allowing them access to photograph bombed weapons smuggling tunnels, missile launching sites, and other legitimate military targets.

The IDF YouTube channel is a vital dissemination tool to counter the propaganda photos staged by Hamas and willingly participated in by the world's media outlets, and so it is perhaps no real surprise that the channel itself is already under attack.

Several of the videos showing the Isreali Air Force hitting Hamas rocket launching sites with GBU-39 precision-guided bombs have been flagged by pro-Hamas (or at least anti-Israeli) users and momentarily removed for terms of use violations before being restored. Some have been removed and have not been restored. Expect this online battle to continue, and perhaps intensify.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:57 AM | Comments (32)

December 29, 2008

Meanwhile, Back in Iraq...

While everyone seems to have shifted their gaze to track Gazans reaping what they've sown, CY commenter Big Country has been busy in Iraq, explaining to State Department VIPS how not to kill themselves and getting bombed... on tequila.

Kinda reminds me of a sandy version of Robert Earl Keen's Merry Christmas From the Family, with body armor.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:10 AM | Comments (2)

December 28, 2008

Because Monsters Are Always Monsters

From the "a zebra can't change its stripes" department comes this lovely story.

Hamas officials say 271 Palestinians have been killed and 600 wounded since Israel began its aerial assault on the Gaza Strip on Saturday, but none of the injured have yet left via Rafah.

Egypt has helicopters and doctors on standby at the Rafah crossing.
There are also up to 40 ambulances waiting to go into Gaza to bring out the most seriously wounded. Tonnes of medical supplies have arrived at the nearby airport of El-Arish.

But the Egyptian authorities say that, at the moment, they have no-one to treat.

Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said the wounded were "barred from crossing" and he blamed "those in control of Gaza" for putting the lives of the injured at risk.

The same terrorist organization that Palestinians and leftists worldwide cheer for targeting innocent Israelis for death on a daily basis is now barring their own civilians from getting medical care in hopes of converting their wounded into dead—wailing processions for the media's cameras are the only effective anti-aircraft weapons in Hamas arsenal.

Gazans fail at killing, and when the are killed in response, they kill the survivors. If there has ever been an entire population that is pathological than this one, I'd be interested in knowing who they were. Various Palestinian factions seem intent on this conflict continuing until one side or the other is completely wiped out.

And most times, they don't even seem to care which side.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | Comments (14)

Bombed in 30 Minutes or Less, Or Your Next One's Free

Israel has finally responded to extensive rocket attacks targeting their civilians with a surprise series of air strikes yesterday against more than 100 Hamas terrorist targets. Air strikes are continuing today, and Israeli ground forces are massing on the border with Gaza.

I'm sure that many people will think that an Israeli ground invasion is all but inevitable.

I also happen to think that Israel's next phase of strikes was banking on Hamas making just that supposition.

Israel's Saturday attacks went after overt Hamas targets in an effort to rattle their proverbial cages, hitting their most visible signs of power, Hamas security stations, armories, tunnels and training camps.

Hamas, trained and back by Iran just like Hezbollah was in 2006, was prepared and braced for a grinding ground war from fixed positions with concurrent and continuing rocket attacks on Israel, in hopes of winning the traditional Arab "victory," of not being utterly wiped off the face of the earth.

Hamas hoped to stall any Israeli ground invasion by making it as costly as possible by forcing Israeli units into ambushes. Overnight, Hamas rushed their terrorist drones to fighting positions along likely Israeli invasion routes to man tank traps and ambush zones. I strongly suspect IAF planners were counting on just that development.

If I'm right, Israeli Air Force planes have been hitting Hamas fortifications filled with eager young terrorists who died waiting for an invasion that will never come. Hamas was suckered into putting their fighters in combat positions while the IAF simply waited for them to show up for their pre-planned bombing runs.

If Gazans weren't part of a genocide-mad death cult I might feel sorry for them, but then I remember that these same terrorists purposefully target Israeli civilians, and that even their kids dance in the streets when Israeli woman and children are killed by Hamas rockets, and I don't feel too bad, at all.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:58 AM | Comments (9)

December 14, 2008

Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush in Baghdad

The Secret Service was apparently taking a nap:

Bush got a size-10 reminder of the fervent opposition to his policies when a man threw two shoes at him -- one after another -- during a news conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"This is the end!" shouted the man, later identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadiya television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.

Bush ducked both throws. Neither leader was hit. In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt; Iraqis whacked a statue of Saddam Hussein with their shoes after U.S. Marines toppled it to the ground in 2003.

"All I can report," Bush joked of the incident, "is a size 10."

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, however, was hit in the eye with a microphone as security guards scrambled to restrain al-Zeidi.

I saw the video of the event in NBC in a breaking news report, and was stunned that the Secret Service was so slow in responding, allowing the journalist to hurl first one shoe, and then another, at least a full second and perhaps several seconds later.

Granted, shoes aren't know to be lethal projectiles, but my point is that from the angle shown, he seems like he would have had time to hurl a grenade before anyone intervened.

I'm sure progressives are having a good chuckle over this, but rather doubt they'll find similar security breaches amusing when Obama takes over in January.

Update: linked added to 2005 grenade attack on Bush, thanks to a reminder by Jeremy in the comments.

Hot Air now has the video.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:19 PM | Comments (13)

December 10, 2008

20 Terrorists Trained For Mumbai Still At Large

Bad news in the Sydney Morning Herald:

POLICE in Mumbai said the 10 men who carried out the terrorist attacks in November were among 30 recruits selected for suicide missions.

The whereabouts of the other 20 were unknown.

Police released the identities and home addresses in Pakistan of the nine gunmen who died during the attack on India's financial centre - a move designed to increase pressure on the Pakistani Government.

It was the first time Indian police had disclosed the larger number of recruits, all of whom it says belonged to the Pakistani militant organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba. Police said there was no reason to believe the other 20 were in India but expressed concern about that possibility.

"Another 20 were ready to die," Deven Bharti, a Mumbai police deputy commissioner, said. "This is the very disturbing part of it."

Considering the effectiveness of the first batch of terrorists in Mumbai. it would be surprising to see them used anywhere else other than another Indian city, though they may take time to scout out any adjustments in India's defenses that resulted from Mumbai's attacks. They also may also chose to hold off on launching additional attacks if they don't want to provoke a war between Pakistan and India that would likely end their ability to use Pakistan as a sanctuary.

Whether they desire a stable base in Pakistan more than success in India seems to be the key question.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:44 AM | Comments (1)

December 02, 2008

Sovereignty Is Not a Shield

Memeorandum is tracking the buzz on a Rabert Kagan op-ed in the Washington Post, where Kagan offers the idea of—more or less—repossessing the parts of Pakistan where terrorist groups operate and placing them under some sort of international control. The proximate cause of his screed is the multi-day assault carried out by terrorists against civilian targets in Mumbai, India that places nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan on a potential course for war.

He's considered an intellectual for this.

Rather than simply begging the Indians to show restraint, a better option could be to internationalize the response. Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security. Establish an international force to work with the Pakistanis to root out terrorist camps in Kashmir as well as in the tribal areas. This would have the advantage of preventing a direct military confrontation between India and Pakistan. It might also save face for the Pakistani government, since the international community would be helping the central government reestablish its authority in areas where it has lost it. But whether or not Islamabad is happy, don't the international community and the United States, at the end of the day, have some obligation to demonstrate to the Indian people that we take attacks on them as seriously as we take attacks on ourselves?

Would such an action violate Pakistan's sovereignty? Yes, but nations should not be able to claim sovereign rights when they cannot control territory from which terrorist attacks are launched. If there is such a thing as a "responsibility to protect," which justifies international intervention to prevent humanitarian catastrophe either caused or allowed by a nation's government, there must also be a responsibility to protect one's neighbors from attacks from one's own territory, even when the attacks are carried out by "non-state actors."

In Pakistan's case, the continuing complicity of the military and intelligence services with terrorist groups pretty much shreds any claim to sovereign protection. The Bush administration has tried for years to work with both the military and the civilian government, providing billions of dollars in aid and advanced weaponry. But as my Carnegie Endowment colleague Ashley Tellis has noted, the strategy hasn't shown much success. After Mumbai, it has to be judged a failure. Until now, the military and intelligence services have remained more interested in wielding influence in Afghanistan through the Taliban and fighting India in Kashmir through terrorist groups than in cracking down. Perhaps they need a further incentive -- such as the prospect of seeing parts of their country placed in an international receivership.

I agree completely with Kagan on the key point: nation-states that cannot control their territory and have effectively ceded control of large portions to terrorist groups or other "non-state actors" also cede their claims of sovereignty. If a nation-state is attacked from within terrorist-controlled territory, they have the moral right—and I would argue, prime responsibility to their citizens—to respond with crushing military force.

But his solution—"seeing parts of their country placed in an international receivership"—must surely be a joke, or the harried keystrokes of a malformed column that was expelled in grotesque stillborn form.

If the international community were serious about contributing to helping settle territories controlled by terrorists, then Afghanistan would be a nation awash in foreign soldiers on peacekeeping duties and aid workers lavishing the bounty of developed nations on the backwards and downtrodden. Of course, that has not occurred. America's military fights with a largely symbolic handful of allies, most cursed with a lack of support from their home nations and hampered by rules of engagement that preclude them of being any practical use. Aid workers are few and far between in Afghanistan and constantly at risk; infrastructure improvements that would help change ancient incubators of extremism are few and far between. Kagan's idea was debunked by years of international apathy before it was ever written.

Being an intellectual, of course, Kagan feels compelled to re-offer this vinegared vintage yet again, hoping that someone will swallow it.

The simple, pragmatic fact of the matter is that no nation wants the responsibilities of another nation's struggles, but they do have every natural right to defend themselves from attack.

What Kagan cannot bring himself to write is that his beloved international community is disinterested in raising up those fractured territories. As a result of their apathy, they condemn these territories and states to be led by rogue actors, and for those within those areas to suffer reprisals. Some will deserve to die. Some will be innocents. Such is the nature of war.

Pakistan has failed to stop non-state actors from using their territory for international terrorism against their neighbors, and has morally forfeited any claims of sovereignty over the rogue regions of their nation. Indian military forces have every moral right to engage terror bases located in eastern Pakistan, as Afghani forces and coalition allies have even moral right to engage terrorist training camps and bases in the west.

This of course, will not assuage those who claim to represent "peace." Though militant Islam has been constantly at war since 632AD, these idealists, unable to understand other cultures do not think as they do, think negotiating is an answer. The militants, quite rightly, view forcing negotiations upon a far stronger power as evidence that their militancy works.

Among the polite and demure, there simply isn't understanding that sometimes, force can only be met with an overwhelming and punishing response. History shows us that terrorism stops when terrorist groups are crushed, are fractured, or are victorious. All three of those conclusions are dictated by violence.

The question is how much more innocent blood civilized societies will see run in their streets before the inevitable and overwhelming violent response that is required is finally deemed necessary.

Update: Ed Morrissey notes another reason to ignore Kagan's suggestion, primarily, how it would be used against Israel.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:04 PM | Comments (8)

November 30, 2008

NY Times Scurrying To Give Obama Victory Credit For Their Shared Defeat In Iraq

Barack Obama and his Democratic allies have famously done everything in their power to try to lose the Iraqi War while President Bush is in office, but now that everyone with any understanding of the conflict knows that the war is effectively won, Democrats are trying to steal credit for the victory they fought so hard against:

In the last year, though, the U.S. troop surge and the backlash from moderate Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda and Iraqi Shiites against pro-Iranian extremists have brought a new measure of stability to Iraq. There is now, for the first time, a chance — still only a chance — that a reasonably stable democratizing government, though no doubt corrupt in places, can take root in the Iraqi political space.

That is the Iraq that Obama is inheriting. It is an Iraq where we have to begin drawing down our troops — because the occupation has gone on too long and because we have now committed to do so by treaty — but it is also an Iraq that has the potential to eventually tilt the Arab-Muslim world in a different direction.

I’m sure that Obama, whatever he said during the campaign, will play this smart. He has to avoid giving Iraqi leaders the feeling that Bush did — that he’ll wait forever for them to sort out their politics — while also not suggesting that he is leaving tomorrow, so they all start stockpiling weapons.

If he can pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it. Nothing would do more to enhance the Democratic Party’s national security credentials than that.

If he can pull this of?

Let's be very clear, so that even a historical revisionist like Friedman can understand it.

House and Senate Democrats, including President Elect Barack Obama, did everything in their power to lose the Iraq War, and deserve no credit for any success.

How many times in the past two years have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their cohorts attempted to defund our troops and force them into defeat? Forty times? Fifty? Frankly, I lost count somewhere in the mid-forties.

Now Friedman and his fellow defeatists on the left who long derided those of us who wanted to secure victory as "28-percenters," "warmongers" and "murderers" want to try to rewrite history. The Times and their fellow travelers long to rewrite their moral cowardice as a virtue, and give themselves a victory by declaration.

That will not be their legacy.

This will.

Friedman should remember this. His newspaper attempted to subsidize defeat, cutting MoveOn.Org a 61% discount to attack our top general during the surge.

A Times photographer took this picture of a Madhi Army militiaman sniping at U.S. soldiers in July of 2006. Impartially, of course.


Democrats including Barack Obama can salvage nothing from Iraq. They were clearly and proudly on the other side, and the resulting allied victory was a defeat for them as it was for al Qaeda, the insurgency, and Iran.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (107)

November 29, 2008

Mumbai Attacks Finally Over, It's Time to Examine Our Own Weaknesses

My friend Jose at Barcepundit has been diligently following the latest on the Mumbai terrorist attacks, which now finally seem to to be winding down. The last terrorists appear to have been killed, and the process of putting out fires and recovering any remaining explosives should start winding down in the next 12-24 hours.

Read it all, as there are some major surprises, including claims that same of the attackers were British, and that a concurrent strike at Mumbai's airport was only thwarted by a missed turn.

I'd also strongly suggest reading Bill Roggio's analysis of the attacks at Long War Journal.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:01 PM | Comments (2)

November 26, 2008

Multiple Terror Attacks Ongoing in Mumbai

The Times of India is reporting multiple terror attacks that have taken place in Mumbai, India this evening. The terrorists appear to be targeting sites popular with Westerners, including luxury hotels, a restaurant, and a train station. Some outlets are claiming that the terrorists were asking specifically where the British and Americans were.

As always, early casualty reports vary wildly and should be taken with a healthy degree of skepticism. That said, the latest figures cited are 80 killed and 250+ wounded, with as many as 40 taken hostage.

The attacks seem crude as far as the weapons and tactics used, with small teams—apparently pairs—using hand grenades and fully-automatic AK-47s, along with at least one significant backpack bomb or similar device that detonated in a taxi, ripping it in half.

As I'm watching this, Fox New television is displaying a still photo of what appears to be security camera footage of a young, clean-shaven man wearing a black tee shirt carrying a folding stock AK with two 30-round magazines taped together to facilitate quick reloading, carrying a blue backpack slung over his shoulder.

The head of India's anti-terrorism squad, Hemant Karkare, is among those killed; it is unclear if he was a target, an unfortunate bystander, or responding to the attacks.

More as this develops.

Update: IBNLive claims that fighting is still on-going at 3 hotels, and that there are seven Westerners among 15 hostages. The attacks apparently began between 10:15-10:30 PM.

A report in Canada's National Post says the group claiming responsibility is the Islamic Security Force-Indian Mujahedeen. They also claimed responsibility for a serial of bombs in Assam that claimed almost 80 lives.

Update: Based upon what we're seeing filter through various media outlets thus far, the sites selected and the coordination of the attacks suggests a well-planned and researched attack, using a minimum number of terrorists per target, using common and relatively inexpensive military small arms.

They seem to be getting maximum effect in terms of disrupting Mumbai and creating carnage and chaos at the outlay of what seems to be less than two dozen total terrorists and the small arms they carried. I have no idea who the Islamic Security Force-Indian Mujahedeen are, but this strike appears to be the work of professionals with military and intelligence skills.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:34 PM | Comments (13)

November 24, 2008

Aim Small, Miss Small

Michael Ledeen notes that a force of 250 insurgents ambushed a column of 30 Marines in Bala Baluk, Afghanistan.

It was a massacre:

"The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they're given the opportunity to fight," the sniper said. "A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong." During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire. He selflessly exposed himself time and again to intense enemy fire during a critical point in the eight-hour battle for Shewan in order to kill any enemy combatants who attempted to engage or maneuver on the Marines in the kill zone. What made his actions even more impressive was the fact that he didn't miss any shots, despite the enemies' rounds impacting within a foot of his fighting position. "I was in my own little world," the young corporal said. "I wasn't even aware of a lot of the rounds impacting near my position, because I was concentrating so hard on making sure my rounds were on target." After calling for close-air support, the small group of Marines pushed forward and broke the enemies' spirit as many of them dropped their weapons and fled the battlefield. At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.

20 shots. 20 kills.

Carlos Hathcock, who famously fought a five-day engagement with a company of Vietcong, would have been proud.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:04 PM | Comments (7)

November 22, 2008

Victory In Iraq Day

The Iraq Wars are over, and we have won.

Let me say that again.

WE HAVE WON THE IRAQ WARS.

And yes, I do mean to use the plural, as we have, along with our allies, won three intertwined wars:

Despite a loathing by the media to declare it such, the Iraq wars are effectively over, and we won. The first war was the second invasion of Iraq where U.S. conventional forces deposed Saddam Hussein, killed his heirs, and defeated his military in 2003. We won that one quickly. The second war, an asymmetrical conflict with al Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni insurgent groups, emerged from the rubble of the conventional conflict as a media war, where seemingly random IED strikes and vicious terrorist bombings that killed dozens at a time sought to create chaos and defeat the U.S and Iraqi will to win.

I hasten to add that this war was in many ways effective, turning the majority of Americans against the conflict and a President who refused to surrender to terrorism. Despite some serious political and military mistakes, new U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine combined with a Sunni rebellion known as the Awakening Movement to stomp out or co-opt the last significant vestiges of the insurgency. Together as allies, Americans and Iraqis have won this war as well. What remains are isolated terrorists committing regrettable and ultimately pointless attacks of violence that can no longer significantly influence the course of history.

The third war, fought concurrently with the Sunni insurgency, was a proxy war pitting the Shia government and it's coalition backers against EFP-equipped, Iranian-trained Shia militias for the control of Iraq's Shia majority. This was won earlier this year when Iraqi forces commanded by the Prime Minister and backed by American units stormed de facto Iranian strongholds throughout southern Iraq, killing or capturing hundreds of pro-Iranian militiamen and effectively neutering Muqtada al Sadr's Medhi Army.

Like all counterinsurgencies, we couldn't easily see at the time when these foes were effectively finished as a long-term threat, but with the benefit of hindsight and ever-dwindling casualty figures for all sides, it is obvious that the war Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats tried so hard to lose in Congress was won in the sands of al Anbar, the slums of Basra, and the streets of Baghdad.

The Iraq War, as men on the ground on all sides of the conflict will tell you, is over, and we—Americans and Iraqis together— won the right for the Arab world's first democracy to exist despite fierce internal and external opposition.

Because of the nature of insurgencies, our President, the Iraq Prime Minister, and the Generals commanding the coalition military forces will not formally declare the war completed, but there is no longer any violence of violence occurring in Iraq that can be properly be called a war. There hasn't been in months, and the basic conditions for victory—the enemy are dead, vanquished, or turned—have existed since July.

Zombie decided to declare today Victory in Iraq Day. I say, since the conditions are met and they've earned their victory, and should be able to call it by its proper name.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:24 AM | Comments (30)

November 20, 2008

Friendly Fire Coverup Comes to Light

Read this article and watch the 12 minutes of edited video. There is some circumstantial evidence here that two U.S. soldiers in an apparent overwatch position were mistaken for insurgents in Ramadi in 2006, and were then killed by a single shot from the main gun of a U.S Abrams tank. Audio in the clip also seems to indicate that the coaxial 7.62 machine gun on the tank also opened up on the position following the discharge of the main gun.

Friendly fire occurs in every war, even though our soldiers try very hard to minimize the risk.

Here, though, it seems that a coverup began to form within 30 minutes of the incident, before the second soldier who died was even evacuated. As his sergeant blamed the incoming fire on a tank in a radio call, he was immediately told by a superior who was not on the scene that the deaths were the result of enemy mortar fire.

That someone then ordered the rushed shredding all documentation related to the men further reeks of a coverup. I suspect we have some Captains, Majors, and perhaps even a Colonel or higher who are involved.

The Army needs to get to the bottom of this, and fast.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:05 PM | Comments (8)

November 18, 2008

Prepping to Lose Afghanistan

U.S. forces have turned over the majority of the country to Iraq security forces with little recognition by a media obsessed with the cost of Sarah Palin's campaign wardrobe. There are units that had shed their once-required body armor because threats of enemy action are so low. Some frontline units have served their tours thus far without firing a single shot.

Despite a loathing by the media to declare it such, the Iraq wars are effectively over, and we won. The first war was the second invasion of Iraq where U.S. conventional forces deposed Saddam Hussein, killed his heirs, and defeated his military in 2003. We won that one quickly. The second war, an asymmetrical conflict with al Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni insurgent groups, emerged from the rubble of the conventional conflict as a media war, where seemingly random IED strikes and vicious terrorist bombings that killed dozens at a time sought to create chaos and defeat the U.S and Iraqi will to win.

I hasten to add that this war was in many ways effective, turning the majority of Americans against the conflict and a President who refused to surrender to terrorism. Despite some serious political and military mistakes, new U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine combined with a Sunni rebellion known as the Awakening Movement to stomp out or co-opt the last significant vestiges of the insurgency. Together as allies, Americans and Iraqis have won this war as well. What remains are isolated terrorists committing regrettable and ultimately pointless attacks of violence that can no longer significantly influence the course of history.

The third war, fought concurrently with the Sunni insurgency, was a proxy war pitting the Shia government and it's coalition backers against EFP-equipped, Iranian-trained Shia militias for the control of Iraq's Shia majority. This was won earlier this year when Iraqi forces commanded by the Prime Minister and backed by American units stormed de facto Iranian strongholds throughout southern Iraq, killing or capturing hundreds of pro-Iranian militiamen and effectively neutering Muqtada al Sadr's Medhi Army.

Like all counterinsurgencies, we couldn't easily see at the time when these foes were effectively finished as a long-term threat, but with the benefit of hindsight and ever-dwindling casualty figures for all sides, it is obvious that the war Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats tried so hard to lose in Congress was won in the sands of al Anbar, the slums of Basra, and the streets of Baghdad.

The Iraq War, as men on the ground on all sides of the conflict will tell you, is over, and we—Americans and Iraqis together— won the right for the Arab world's first democracy to exist despite fierce internal and external opposition.

Unable to force a loss in Iraq before taking office and now nearly unable to lose, Barack Obama's allies are already setting their sights on losing the other major conflict engaging our military, attempting to concede Pakistan's tribal areas and Afghanistan to al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamofacist terrorist groups.

Since the beginnings of the buildup that led to the Iraq War, the same far left "war is never the answer (unless we get to build the concentration camps)" set that didn't want us to invade Afghanistan suddenly declared that was the "good" war, that Afghanistan should be our focus, and that getting Osama bin Laden should be the primary, if not singular focus of the entire war on terror.

With Barack Obama now secured as the President Elect, TIME now declares that winning the Af-Pak conflict and getting Osama isn't all that important after all:

The important point of Hayden's Atlantic talk Thursday was that Muslims have turned against bin Laden, realizing that his campaign against the West has ended up killing more Muslims than it has Islam's enemies. Al-Qaeda may be picking up adherents in North Africa and Yemen, preparing its return, but it certainly is no longer in a position to destabilize Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country. And, although Hayden didn't say it, there is no good evidence bin Laden is capable of mounting a large-scale attack. He failed to pull off an October surprise, as many in the FBI and CIA had feared he would.

Despite all this, whether bin Laden is alive or dead is actually pretty irrelevant. Obama has no real choice but to revitalize the search for him, if only for political considerations. If al-Qaeda were to attack in the United States the first months of his term, Obama would end up for the rest of it explaining why he wasn't more vigilant.

But what if bin Laden really is dead, buried under a hundred tons of rock at Tora Bora or so weakened that he might as well be dead? Indefinitely crashing around Afghanistan and Pakistan's wild, mountainous tribal region on a ghost hunt cannot serve our interests. The longer we leave troops in Afghanistan the worse the civil war there will become. One day Obama will need to give up the hunt — declare bin Laden either dead or irrelevant. He has more important enemies to deal with, from Iran to Russia.

I am more than happy to concede that bin Laden is either dead or irrelevant; that is an argument that many on the right and within the military have been making for a very long time. It has been the American left and Democrats in Congress that obsessed with making bin Laden a symbol of the war they argued we should be fighting instead of the war in Iraq. Now that Iraq is won and they have control of both branches of Congress and the White House, they're suddenly attempting to shift the goalposts.

Instead of focusing on winning the war they have been insisting is the "right" war to fight, they're now attempting to trivialize it and minimize expectations of what we can accomplish so that can build the political cover to withdrawal, sans victory. Rest assured... they will find a way to blame President Bush for not winning, instead of accepting responsibility for the loss they are now hard at work trying to engineer.

Certainly, Afghanistan is in far more dire straits than Iraq, but it is a war that can still be won if Democrats decide it is worth committing to win. Sadly, so many of those now in Congress grew up in the 60s and 70s and have a systemic case of Vietnam Syndrome. They don't know how to win. They don't care to win, and in deeply disturbed, self-loathing, and broken parts of their psyche, they don't think we deserve to win wars.

Prepare for defeat, America.

After all, it is the change you elected.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM | Comments (10)

November 17, 2008

Big Country Checks In

Long-time readers of CY may know "Big Country" from his first-hand reflections of the situation in Iraq as someone who has spent more time in theater than out of it since the war began. He just got back to Baghdad, and shot me the following in an email.

Just touched down 3 +/- hours ago at Sather AB. Dude... INSANELY changed doesn't begin to describe this place. I've landing in Baghdad under fire before and watched random acts of anti-aircraft fire overhead as the locals would try and unsuccessfully utilize old triple a flak guns... I've seen Baghdad under lock and key so to speak throughout 04 and 05. NUTHIN and I do mean NUTHIN can begin to describe the change. Quick observations included the fact that the city was all lit up where it had never been before. Try standing on the runway and not having to worry about random acts of rockets, mortars and suchlike. Try no body armor seen on anyone anywhere since I've been here... This place is so laid back its stupid dude... I'll post more to you and my blog later... but as Yon said "We Won." I'd have to add "In Spades!" to that.

Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:36 PM | Comments (5)

November 14, 2008

"The Iraq War is Over. We Won."

Though he'd been on a mission all day and was about to drop, Mike Yon just called from Iraq to let me know that the war is over, and we've won. Whatever it is that is left of violence, there isn't combat. Roughly half of the men in the unit of the 10th Mountain Division he was out on missions with are veterans with previous tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in eight months into their deployment in southern Baghdad, they haven't fired a single bullet in combat.

Our soldiers in Iraq have played many roles and worn many hats, but it seems that their primary role now is that of a peacekeeper, providing support to a government and a people that seem increasingly capable of handling their own affairs.

We can declare victory because President Bush wouldn't quit on his troops. If Barack Obama had his way, a triumphant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would have had a chance to have made the same claim over the Caliphate of Iraq.

Glenn Reynolds has more.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:41 PM | Comments (35)

November 07, 2008

Bad News In The Badlands

Khar, Pakistan:

A homicide bomber attacked a gathering of anti-militant Pakistani tribesmen Thursday, killing nine and wounding 45 in a northwestern region where the military has clashed with insurgents for months, officials said.

The attack in the Batmalai area of the Bajur tribal region was the latest to target tribal militias that have sprung up — with government backing — to take on Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters nested along the Afghan border.

Pakistan launched an offensive in Bajur three months ago to dismantle what it said was a virtual Taliban mini-state that is a source of militants flowing into Afghanistan.

The Salarzai tribesmen were preparing to stage an assault on local militant hide-outs when the blast occurred, said Iqbal Khattak, a government official. Malik Rahimullah, a tribal elder, said the bomb exploded as soon as armed contingents began to move.

He and officials initially said it appeared that a remote-controlled bomb was used, but later Khattak said mutilated body parts of an apparent homicide bomber were found, and that witnesses said they saw a young man rushing into the crowd before the explosion.

Amir Khan, a tribesman, said the scene was littered with severed limbs and that several tribal elders were among the dead.

After failing in their own efforts against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and related groups, the Pakistani military has attempted to spur a tribal rebellion against these groups akin to the "Awakening" movement in Iraq. These efforts will fail.

Period.

The question is whether or not the war in the tribal areas will spread into a civil war, and how secure Pakistan's nuclear warheads will be in the event of such a conflict.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:03 AM | Comments (3)

October 29, 2008

Veterans versus Murtha

It's time for Jack Murtha to apologize to the Marines he smeared. Our veterans deserve nothing less.



Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:53 PM | Comments (4)

October 23, 2008

Remembering the Fallen

Twenty-five years ago today was the terrorist attack on U.S. Marines in Beirut.

Remember them.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:23 PM | Comments (0)

October 15, 2008

No Awakening in Pakistan

Why an Iraqi-style Awakening movement in Pakistan is destined to fail.

My latest
at PJM.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:45 PM | Comments (0)

October 13, 2008

The Road to Hell

Michael Yon's latest dispatchfrom Afghanistan is posted, in which he meets with Afghan fighters, and obtains clues about those fighters that ambushed and killed ten French soldiers in August.

As always, Yon's reporting is reader-funded, so if you like his reporting, please consider contributing.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2008

U.S. Embassy in San'a, Yemen Survives Car Bombing, Assault

Word coming in right now claims that at least one primary blast thought to be a car bomb and numerous smaller blasts thought to be RPGs were detonated near the front gate of the U.S. Embassy compound in San'a, Yemen, and the blasts were followed by gunfire.

Sky News is saying the attackers were dressed as soldiers, and notes that the Yemeni branch of the Islamic Jihad had made threats just three days ago.

Reuters notes that the U.S. Embassy says no Americans were among the wounded.

According to CNN, ten police and civilians were killed, as were six attackers.

Developing...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:19 AM | Comments (1)

September 16, 2008

Will Obama Honor His Commitment to the Af-Pak War? Will We?

As I write this I'm IM-ing Michael Yon on the far side of the world, and the Iraq War's most experienced embedded combat journalist is frustrated with the lack of interest in the Afghanistan-Pakistan War. Yon's Death in the Corn, Part 1 is a riveting story in a war the mainstream media has largely abandoned in order to cover far more pressing issues, such as developing new smears to float against Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to extend the expiration date of Tina Fey's career on Saturday Night Live.

Yon's current series of combat dispatches from inside C- Company 2 Para of the British Army in Afghanistan's Helmand Province alludes to near constant war with the Taliban, but the reader interest simply doesn't seem to be there.

Ironically, the same media that tried to subvert the war in Iraq with a flood of biased reporting is far more effectively neutering support for the campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan through negligence and indifference.

Americans will support our soldiers when they can see what they are fighting for. Americans must be able to empathize with our soldiers, and those they would set free. That is the reason Yon's iconic photograph of the Iraq war, of Major Mark Bieger cradling an Iraqi girl named Farah as he rushed to get her aid when she was mortally wounded by an car bomb, mattered so much. It proved that humanizing element. But even as powerful as his photos are, and as compelling as his writing is, Yon cannot carry the coverage of the Af-Pak War on alone.

And the Af-Pak War promises to get far worse before it gets better.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been using the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border as a sanctuary with the blessing and support of the ISI, Pakistan's most powerful intelligence service. President Bush, frustrated by the refusal of the Pakistani government to more actively act as an ally against al Qaeda and the Taliban, secretly authorized cross-border special forces raids, the authorization of which was of course loudly trumpeted in pages of the New York Times.

As a result, an embarrassed Pakistani military was compelled to announce they would fire on U.S. forces if they crossed the border. Allies? Perhaps we never really were, though we certainly liked to pretend that it were so. That illusion now seems to be falling away.

Interestingly, Pakistan's involvement, and the need to take the fight into the tribal regions, may have been one of the things that Barack Obama's army of 300 policy advisers got right, and as Chrstopher Hitchen's notes, may lead a much more involved and bloody war.

Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

Two-important questions are raised by Hitchens' article.

  • Will Republican Presidential candidate John McCain adopt Obama's more muscular approach in dealing with Pakistan's support of the Taliban if elected?
  • Will Barack Obama have the mettle for a rare and prolonged break with his base and the Democratic Party he has voted with 96-percent of the time if elected, to fight the war he argues must be fought?

If McCain adopts a more muscular support, his track records suggests that he is willing to shoulder the burden of being unpopular, if it means seeing the war through to victory.

Barack Obama? He's never had to stand on his own before, and I'm not sure he's even tried.

If he is elected, and rises to the challenge of his rhetoric, I suspect he'll be as surprised as the rest of us.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (5)

September 14, 2008

FYI: Yon From Afghanistan Tonight on BlogTalk Radio

Michael Yon, currently embedded with British Paras in a combat outpost in Afghanistan, will be a guest Sunday Sept 14 at 11:00 PM on The JihadiKiller Hour on BlogTalk Radio. Listen if you can.

Yon's next dispatch "Death In the Corn" will be posted at http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ tomorrow.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:00 PM | Comments (1)

August 26, 2008

Jeep Jihadi Gets Up to 33 Years

Progressive university town that Chapel Hill is, they'll probably have some there protest the decision which resulted from Taheri-Azar's attempt to kill UNC-Chapel Hill students in The Pit with a rented SUV.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:52 PM | Comments (1)

August 19, 2008

Shocker: NY Times Decries Laughably Incompetent Taliban Rout As "Complex Attack"

You've got to be kidding me:

The attack on Camp Salerno in Khost Province was one of the most complex attacks seen so far in Afghanistan with multiple suicide bombers and a backup fighting force that tried to breach defenses on to the airport at the base. It followed a suicide car bombing at the outer entrance to the same base on Monday morning, which killed 12 Afghan workers lining up to enter the base, and another attempted bombing that was thwarted shortly after.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for all three attacks in Khost. Their spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, reached by telephone at an unknown location, said that 15 suicide bombers, equipped with machine guns and vests packed with explosives, with 30 militants backing them up, attacked the base, one of the largest foreign military bases in Afghanistan. He claimed that some of the bombers had gotten inside the base and had killed a number of American soldiers and destroyed equipment and helicopters. This last claim was denied by General Azimi of the Afghan military.

Suicide bombers mull about while preparing for an attack against a fortified U.S./Afghan position, receive minimal support in the form of small arms cover fire from a small band of untrained militant irregulars before helicopters chop them to bits, and this is what the Times considers a "complex attack?"

No artillery or mortar support.

No mention of any flanking attack or feints.

No mention of even minimal attempts to camouflage the suicide bombers by disguising them as civilians or base workers or members of the opposite sex.

As a matter of fact, they didn't even manage a straight ahead, mindless assault into interlocking fields of fire. They got spotted well outside the perimeter and got cut to shreds while still 1,000 yards outside the base, and the majority of the Taliban seem to have been killed as they tried to flee. Is it even fair to say they were killed in an attack, when it appears they were blown to bits before the attack began?

Not that I'm singling out the Times for crappy coverage of the attack, The Scotsman account sounds like a Monty Python skit:

NATO troops and Taliban fighters clashed today after a group of the insurgents, backed by suicide bombers, tried to breach the defences of the main US base in south-eastern Afghanistan.

Backed by suicide bombers? I guess that is one way of making sure there will be no retreat.

The attack on the French base, by contrast, had far more deadly ramifications, with 10 French soldiers killed and another 21 wounded, but for the Times to try to inflate the importance or the complexity of the Taliban attack on Camp Salerno beyond the buffonish, ill-advised and utter failure that it was isn't simply bad reporting, but verges on making excuses for the other side.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (30)

August 12, 2008

UNC "Jeep Jihadi" Pleads Guilty

Via WRAL:

Mohammed Taheri-azar, the man accused of trying to run over students at UNC-Chapel Hill two years ago, pleaded guilty Tuesday morning to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder.

He will be sentenced later this month.

Taheri-azar was accused of driving a Jeep Cherokee through The Pit, a popular student gathering space on campus, in March 2006.

He was charged with nine counts of attempted murder. At the time of the attack, Taheri-azar told police he wanted to injure people in response to the U.S. government's treatment of Muslims abroad.

This is the Pit, the area where Taheri-azar, a UNC graduate, tried to kill his fellow students. In a March 5, 2007 court appearance he stated he "hates all Americans" and "hates all Jews."

Shockingly, the Iranian-born American citizen didn't hate American enough to leave it.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:06 AM | Comments (0)

July 30, 2008

Summer Camp?

That is what Reuter's says this picture portrays.

The caption reads, "Palestinian youths attend a summer camp organised by the Islamic Jihad movement in Gaza City July 30, 2008."

The Islamic Jihad, of course, is a terrorist group established with the goal of wiping out the Jewish state of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state. Their interests include Qassam rocketry, suicide bombings, and martyr operations.

This isn't a "summer camp" as we would recognize it. This is the modern Hitler Youth.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:22 AM | Comments (3)

July 23, 2008

A Russian "Greenlight" to Attack Iran?

That is one intriguing interpretation of today's disclosure that Iran would be getting the long range Russian surface-to-air missile system known as the S-300PMU-1 (SA-20), and that the system would be deployable in as soon as six months from their expected September arrival.

The Russians no doubt relish the contortions the West is going through over Iran's nuclear program, but at the same time, their intelligence organizations are telling them that Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons and missile technologies that can also threaten Russian interests.

By selling the Iranians advanced weapons systems and then disclosing their most likely deployment dates, the Russians are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They've outlined the outside window of Iran's greatest vulnerability to an air assault on its nuclear program and command and control facilities. It only remains to be seen now whether or not American and Israeli leaders will strike with enough force to irreparably destroy key elements of the Iranian nuclear program, or if they will make the deadly mistake of trying to avert a nuclear war "on the cheap."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:58 PM | Comments (4)

July 16, 2008

While the Media Slept...

...another province, Diwaniyah, was handed over to Iraqi government control.

This means that for the first time, a democratically-elected Iraqi government is in charge of a majority of the country (10 of 18 provinces). The largest province and former home of the Sunni insurgency, al Anbar, is on the cusp of being handed over as well.

You would think that turning point such as the Iraqis taking over the control of the majority of their country would be a moment that editorial writers, always looking for moments pregnant with symbolism, would gush over.

Alas, Iraq isn't as newsworthy with victory so near at hand (and with the anointed candidate faltering so badly), and so this milestone goes all but unreported.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:18 PM | Comments (4)

July 15, 2008

Framing Obama

Matthew Yglesias wants to get into a framing discussion and attempts to argue than an ABC poll was unfair to his man-crush/candidate.

Without nailing down the dishonesties in Yglesias' attempts to recast McCain's position, let's get into the specifics of what will be lost by Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan.

Logistically, it is deemed quite improbable, verging on impossible, for U.S. combat forces to perform an orderly withdrawal in 16 months. A withdrawal of personnel is possible, but at the cost of leaving behind hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in taxpayer-purchased equipment that would have to be repurchased stateside, increasing future government debt, promising us yet another tax increase courtesy of Obama.

A commenter of his (Allan) claims that "Obama supports removing our troops from Iraq in an orderly process," but that is the height of fantasy; those who work in logistics have noted that his plan would promote chaos and unnecessary stresses on the supply chain and limited port facilities that have to process, decontaminate, pack, and ship outbound equipment and supplies.

This is simply the logistical argument, ignoring the dangers of a too-quick handover in provinces where Iraqi forces are still not deemed capable of taking the lead. Considering the stellar progress and trajectory of security gains and government progress in the last year, it is possible that in 16 months that the Iraqi security forces can take the lead in the eight remaining provinces where the U.S. is in charge of security, but it would be foolish and counterproductive to predetermine the removal of the safety net U.S. forces would still provide as Iraqi forces become more competent and confident.

Unless, of course, you have some vested interest in defeat.

Then there is the simple common-sense matter of which troops Obama wants to remove (combat forces). As a Iraqi war soldier or Marine (I forget which) remarked last week, who's going to be left in Obama's Army in Iraq, cooks and truck drivers?

Who is going to protect our remaining troops and positions and backstop the Iraqis if Obama pulls out our combat troops? Supply clerks? Dental hygienists?

Obama's plans for Iraq, like all of his other plans, are formulated with the impulsiveness and lack of concern for the unintended consequences of international affairs we'd expect from a neophyte government official not even one term removed from an inconsequential and lackluster state government stint, and a responsibility-free community organizer job before it.

Like so many things attached to the name Obama, his withdrawal plan for Iraqi is based upon irresponsible promises divorced from what he can actually deliver without causing far more hurt, a truism of his campign that can just as readily be applied to his domestic and foreign policy perscriptions.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:10 AM | Comments (4)

July 10, 2008

Never Too Late to Spread a Little Fear

You have to give credit where credit is due: the Washington Post isn't quite ready to surrender to victory in Iraq, and they're not above hyping a desperate bid for relevance by waning Shia militias as a significant tactical adaptation.

U.S. Troops in Iraq Face A Powerful New Weapon by Ernesto Londoño of the Washington Post Foreign Service was a much better article the first time I read it over a month ago in Bill Roggio's far more useful Long War Journal article, which the Post mentions but doesn't link. I can only assume that the Post failed to link Roggio's article because is so much more competently written.

While Londoño seems intent on describing a weapon system that is a an improvement over past improvised devices in describing a weapon that has killed at least 21 people, he buries the fact that 18 of those 21 (16 civilians, two Madhi Army militiamen) were killed as a result of the jury-rigged bombs failing, and detonating in their launchers.

The so-called IRAM is a crude, desperate weapon apparently designed by the Judean People's Front.

I'm not surprised that the Post would try to hype potential bad news in Iraq, but a crude weapon that has killed six times more people on the launching end than the receiving end seems more ripe for mocking than fear.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:50 AM | Comments (5)

July 09, 2008

Iraqi Government Considers Timetable for U.S. Withdrawal

They aren't quite ready for coalition forces to leave just yet, but the dramatic gains in terms of security and political successes now have the Iraqi government suggesting a possible U.S. withdrawal.

The Iraqis are confident in their ability to handle their own affairs, and I can certainly understand them wanting Iraq fully back in Iraqi hands. They're hoping for a pull-out in the 2011-13 timeframe and would like to try to establish a deadline based upon "conditions and circumstances" on the ground.

Considering the present situation in Iraq, I certainly think that a pullout in that 3-5 year window is certainly possible, though I can understand why some in Washington may be leery committing to date-based withdrawal schedule, just as I can understand why Iraqis would like to have a specific date to look forward to. As the Iraqi government and coalition forces negotiate, perhaps the best option—and to my mind, the most logical—would be a compromise agreement, that says by X date, Y forces should withdraw if Z conditions have been met, and if not by that date, as soon as those conditions are met.

This would give Iraqis not just a date to look forward to, but give them more incentive to make sure that security and political needs of their citizens are being addressed.

What would be hilarious in watching these developments—if it wasn't so pathetic—are progressive Democrats crowing about this recent decision by Iraqi officials, insisting that a timeline for withdrawal is exactly what they've been asking for all along.

Not so fast.

Some progressives have been pushing for a withdrawal since before the first bomb dropped on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Some are genuinely opposed to the idea of all wars for any reason, some were opposed to a war launched for reasons they disagreed with by a government they disagreed with, and some fickle souls began pushing for withdrawal only once the conflict became more bloody, expensive, and protracted than they assumed it would be.

However they got to that position, they got there by the worst days of the war in 2006, when Sunni and Shia militias were locked in a deadly sectarian conflict verging on open civil war, and coalition forces were taking heavy casualties. At the time John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Congressional Democrats were calling the loudest for a timeline for withdrawing American forces in Iraq, the safety and security of the Iraqi people and the success of their nation was the last thing on their minds.

Democrats wanted American troops pulled out of Iraq as soon as logistically possible, without preconditions, even if it plunged that nation into open an civil war that could cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, even if such a headlong withdrawal led to genocide, even if such a morally bankrupt decision led to a widespread regional war.

It was and is a craven, reprehensible act of cowardice, mirroring the shameful behavior of the Copperhead Democrats 140 years earlier who wanted to abandon Blacks to slavery in the South to sue for peace in the U.S. Civil War.

The Copperheads of today's Democratic Party color themselves "progressives" for championing the abandonment of a group of people (slightly lighter in skin tone than the last time) to a fate potentially as bad or worse than the slaves of antebellum, and make no mistake: the modern Copperheads care no more about "liberty and justice for all" than did their forebearers.

Then as now, it was about their selfish personal desires, hopes of amassing political power, and disdain for a stubborn Republican President. Then as now, they could rely upon their friends in the media to carry forth a call for appeasement and abandonment.

But the situation now in Iraq is far different now than it was when progressive Democrats began advocating the abandonment Iraqi civilians to a bloody fate.

Now, it is an increasingly competent and confident Iraqi government itself that builds hope of a U.S. withdrawal, based upon their growing strength and the continuing vanquishment of terrorists, criminal militias, and common gangs.

A timeline for withdrawal based upon Iraqi and coalition successes is to be commended as a beacon of hope for a brighter future for a new and sovereign democracy in the Middle East, just as the timeline of abandonment and defeat advocated by progressive Democrats should be regarded by history as a mark of shame.

Update: A bit dog barks.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:52 AM | Comments (12)

Homegrown Terrorists Killed Outside U.S. Consulate in Istanbul

Three gunmen ambushed Turkish police outside the U.S. consulate in Instanbul, Turkey today, in an attack that left all three attackers and three Turkish police officers dead, but not before the police killed their assailants.

The attack was carried out with handguns and a pump shotgun, indicating this was not the work of an organized terrorist organization such as al Qaeda or Hezbollah. These groups have a well-documented history of using large vehicle-borne explosives to carry out attacks against fortified positions such as embassies and consulates. Using such short-range weaponry in such a poorly executed and apparently ad hoc assault, the attack had virtually no chance of success, and no one was apparently injured inside the consulate.

A fourth man seen with the three attackers never left a gray car seen at a nearby carwash moments before the ambush, and escaped after his compatriots were killed.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:15 AM | Comments (2)

July 08, 2008

Map Quest

"...a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

Such were the famous words of Shakespeare's MacBeth, though they apply equally well to empty Iranian threats against U.S. Naval vessels in the Persian Gulf in case of conflict between our nations.

The simple fact of the matter is that should tensions escalate, U.S. capital ships have no need to be in the Persian Gulf to control the Iranian shoreline and the Straits of Hormuz.

The image above, pulled from Google Maps, shows, small body of water on the left is the Persian Gulf. The large body on the right is the Gulf of Oman, outlet to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean (larger map).

U.S. carriers, amphibious assault ships, and larger surface ships can easily leave the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz if a strike on Iran is imminent, far removing them from the range of Iranian surface ships, aircraft, and radar stations. This negates the threat of Iranian anti-ship missiles, and turns the threat of blindly-fired ballistic missiles into irrelevancies splashing down in empty seas.

Iran would retain the ability to strike Israel, and could no doubt stir up trouble in Iraq via it's terror cells there, or even an open but suicidal direct assault against American forces in Iraq and elsewhere on land throughout the Gulf region, but the threats of a Iranian counterstrike against U.S. Naval forces is little more than bluster.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:38 AM | Comments (17)

June 27, 2008

We Must Still be Losing

Tell the Democrats we're running out of people to which we can surrender.

Abu Khalaf (a pseudonym) was the top al Qaeda leader in Mosul, al Qaeda's last reputed stronghold in Iraq, until American soldiers shot him full of holes. Further south, al Sadr's Madhi Army may be falling apart, with perhaps as few as 150 military members.

So, will someone please bring me up to speed on Barack Obama's position this hour? Is he still insisting that it is 2006 in Iraq, that the situation is untenable, and that the best thing we can do is withdraw all our forces in an expensive, resource-abandoning retreat that many experts suspect could trigger a regional war that makes today's gas prices look like a bargain and trigger a worldwide depression?

I ask, because it's rather difficult to keep up with his positions these days as he continues to throw his principles, campaign promises, friends, mentors, and supporters under the proverbial bus to bow at the alter of political expediency.

I kid, of course.

I don't seriously think Obama will change his position on Iraq being lost, as that is the only viable issue of his campaign once you eliminate his Carteresque economic schemes, head-in-the-sand energy policy, his Clintonian heathcare plan, and his beautifully empty platitudes. What he and his allies will try to do is attempt to redefine losing and winning, and try to cast obvious developing successes as defeats. If he can't successfully redefine success into failure, Barack Obama is finished as a viable candidate.

Update: Dr. Krauthammer is equally unimpressed with Obama's constantly shifting positions, and the media's unwillingness to challenge him.

It's an odd relationship Obama has with journalists. He treats them with the arrogant disdain of last night's 2:00 AM hookup, and still they pine over him, happily used, as they're shown the door.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:47 AM | Comments (7)

June 24, 2008

A Sad Day for Copperheads

You won't easily find it on Fox News or CNN or Google News, but somewhere, between the shocking news that Don Imus might have a race-relations problem and the ground-breaking development that Palestinians have engaged in self-defeating random violence, most of us seemed to miss that a dream is more than halfway towards completion.

Al Anbar province in Iraq, once described as all but lost, will become the tenth Iraqi province handed over to Iraqi government control:

The U.S. military will transfer control of security in Anbar Province to Iraqi forces this week, the governor of the region said Monday, a remarkable turnaround given that the region was considered lost to insurgents less than two years ago.

Anbar will be the 10th of 18 provinces in Iraq to return security matters to Iraqi control since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, but it will be the first Sunni Arab region to do so.

Mamun Sami Rasheed, governor of Anbar Province, said the handover ceremony would take place Saturday. "We have been dreaming of this event since 2003," he said.

With ten provinces down and eight to go, we are passing a milestone of sorts. More than half of the country will be under the control of a democratically-elected Iraqi government, the first freely-elected Arab government in modern history. You would think that Democrats would be thrilled at this step towards freedom, as the turnover also means we are one small step closer to a withdrawal from Iraq, which they claim to be their goal.

Barack Obama isn't trumpeting the good news, however. Left-leaning blogs also appear to be silent on the issue, or nearly so, if Memeorandum is a guide. Instead, liberal bloggers there seem more interested in reacting to Glenn Greenwald's latest long-winded rant about FISA (while ignoring Greenwald's own history of wiretapping, of course).

Al Anbar? It doesn't seem to exist.

With ever passing day that Iraq inches towards success or takes a dramatic leap, it becomes ever more apparent that many Democrats in this country, be they members of the news media, the new media, elected officials, or the activist left, don't just want the United States out of Iraq. They want us cast out or withdrawn in defeat.

The al Anbar handover is symbolic in nature as well as practical, and good news for two Democratic nations. Sadly Democratic leaders cannot join in sharing the good news, because what is good for the United States and what is good for the citizens of Iraq is not good for Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama.

How sad this day must be for Democrats that are more loyal to their nation than the spite-based political ideology of their fellow travelers.

Update: Peter Wehner, writing at NRO's The Corner, concludes:

Iraq has gone from broken to fragile and slowly mending. Even now, though, leading Democrats seem wholly uninterested in the outcome in Iraq; all they care about is withdrawing American troops. It is a commitment they hold with ideological and theological intensity – and if they are ever allowed to act on their convictions, misery and death and defeat would follow.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:47 PM | Comments (9)

June 20, 2008

The Real "Dead-Enders"

It has been fascinating—and often more than a little infuriating—to watch the anti-Administration wing of the anti-war movement over the past year.

I'd like to first make that distinction clear: there are those who are against the concept of warfare to resolve conflicts, and those that are against this war in specific because they have an acute loathing for their domestic political opposition, led by the current President. Make no mistake: so many of those who presently claim to be anti-war now would change their position on military intervention in an heartbeat if it meant intervening in Darfur or (_fill_in_the_blank_), if it satisfied their political desires and could be painted as a "humanitarian" mission.

Those politically-motivated progressives that see anti-war sentiment as little more than a way to grab power via the ballot box have been most aggravating and occasionally amusing. They saw that an unpopular and protracted war was a way to market themselves to pick up seats in Congress in 2004 and 2006, and hoped perhaps they could ride anti-war sentiment to the White House in 2008.

They rallied behind an eloquent dove of a candidate who has repeatedly promised America to withdrawal U.S. forces on a rigid 16-month timetable, regardless of condition on the ground or the effect it would have on the Iraqi people or on the stability of the region.

That timetable was predicated upon conditions on the ground in Iraq in 2006, when violence was spiraling out of control, and it seemed all but assured that Iraq would become a failed state. Obviously, a lot has changed in the time since Barack Obama predicated his campaign on achieving defeat, and in the past year in particular.

Violence dropped as U.S. and Iraqi forces moved off-base and into the communities, and as the communities themselves began rejecting insurgents, terrorists, gangs, and rogue militias. The Iraqi Parliament, once almost as ineffective as our current Congress, has passed important reconciliation legislation, including an amnesty law that has already led to hundreds of captured insurgents, including Associated Press personnel, to be set free.

Though leading Democrats like Harry Reid still insist that the war is lost, and the Speaker of the House insists that any progress must be due to Iran's moderating influence (and not the success of American and Iraqi forces in killing those carrying out those "moderating Iranian influences") it has become obvious to most of the world that the Iraqi experiment just might work and is well worth pursuing.

Austin Bay noted this morning that freshman Senator Hopeandchange may be trying to distance himself from his adopted policy of purposeful defeat (h/t: Instapundit):

Obama still touts his pull-out — sort of, occasionally, okay, less occasionally. Obama, like his cohort of supporters, is politically committed to defeat. Obama will now rely on rhetoric to assauge the DailyKos-crowd and obscure his shift on Iraq. He will change his position– and Samantha Power prepared the way several months ago in her ill-fated BBC interview this past spring. Obama thinks he can get away with it: he just backed out of public financing.

The NY Times on the deal before the vote. And Fox.

The real rubes in this election won’t be the rural Midwesterners Obama slandered, the ones who cling to their guns and religon. It will be the gray-haired profs with ponytails, clinging to their cannabis and liturgy of defeat.

When Obama quietly slinks aways from his signature issue and the anti-Bush wing of the anti-war movement loses their defeat-at-any-cost pledgemaster, what will become of the anti-war progressive fringe?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (40)

June 18, 2008

An Army Learns

Over at The Donovan, proof that this generation of military leaders is learning from mistakes made in the past.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:03 AM | Comments (0)

June 13, 2008

al Sadr Crafting an Iraqi Hezbollah?

Via email from a trusted source, a VOI account. It looks like al Sadr is going to continue his Iranian-backed insurrection against the Iraqi government:

The anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Friday expressed intention to authorize setting up "cells to resist the occupation", head of the political bureau of Sadr's Movement said.

"The declaration by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr to form cells to resist the
occupation comes in full conformity with the approach of the
Sadrists," Sheikh Liwa Semaysam told Aswat al-Iraq- Voices of Iraq-
(VOI) on the phone.

The key Sadrist leader added that these cells will "have a written
authorization by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr to carry out their task, on
the condition that arms will only be in their hands for use against
the occupier and none else."

Sheikh Semaysam, a close aide of Sadr, provided no further details.

If true—and apparently, it is—al Sadr is attempting to split and sanction a military wing off of the Madhi Army and Iranian "Special groups" to continue insurgent operations, while making at least a face-value attempt to demilitarize the organization.

Intresting, isn't it?

Iran tried to infiltrate Iraqi government at all levels, along with militia groups and criminal gangs. Obviously, as PM Maliki's clearing out of Sadrists from Baghdad to Basra proved, the government route has failed, and the militia route is on the ropes.

As a result, al Sadr is apparently attempting to craft an Iraqi Hezbollah, entrenching his group socially as an Iranian-supported shadow government with it's own insurgent military wing. Iraq's security forces and government are far less fractured than those in Lebanon, so it seems unlikely that al Sadr's hopes will come to fruition, but the development does raise an interesting question, namely: is this the best Iran has left?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:45 AM | Comments (8)

June 04, 2008

What Lies Will He Tell Today?

Over at Hot Air this morning, Ed Morrissey points to an article in the Weekly Standard about Barack Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization:

These designations are more than just rhetorical; labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization brings to bear a range of powerful sanctions that crack down on its ability to work in the global financial system.

The proximate cause of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a growing dossier of evidence from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, documenting the IRGC's role in financing, training, arming, and directing extremists in Iraq responsible for the murder of hundreds of American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

Of course, that's not the full extent of the IRGC's malign influence. The group is an acknowledged supporter of terror (a fact even Senator Obama concedes), training, financing and arming Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and most recently, the Taliban. At home in Iran, the IRGC now dominates the regime, with 9 out of 21 seats in the Ahmadinejad cabinet held by former IRGC and IRGC-affiliated officials. The IRGC is also a vital player in Iran's licit and illicit economies, and dominates important sectors like construction.

Needless to say, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment won broad support in the Senate, passing 76-22. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Dick Durbin.

Senator Obama, however, was one of a handful of senators who opposed the amendment--which had aroused the ire of the left-wing blogosphere. In the frenzied minds of DailyKos and Moveon.org, Kyl-Lieberman--or "Lieberman-Kyl," as they preferred to call it--was nothing less than a stealth declaration of war on Iran.

So if the National Journal's Most Liberal Senator is still taking marching orders from Kossacks and the "General Betray Us" radicals of Moveon.org, where, precisely, is Obama's claimed but never seen bipartisanship? It doesn't exist. It never has.

As Ed astutely notes:

There are only two reasons to oppose the application of sanctions on Iran. Either one wants to go to war and skip all of the other options, or doesn't believe Iran to be a threat and a sponsor of terror. Into which group should we put Barack Obama?

Obama, who resolutely refuses to acknowledge changing fortunes in Iraq (the more than year-long string of successes there are not changes he can believe in), obviously takes the later, "see no evil" view.

Pro-Palestinian Obama will try to gloss over his record (such as the Kyl-Lieberman vote) and his past associations today as he addresses AIPAC. Perhaps someone in the audience will ask Obama why he allowed a pair of grants totaling $75,000 to go to the Arab-American Action Network, a group that calls the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe," while director of the ultra-liberal Woods Fund.

Barack Obama supports Israel the way R. Kelly supports Girl Scouts. It's time someone calls him on it.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:03 AM | Comments (0)

June 03, 2008

Yon: War Could be Over By Year's End

A stunning prediction from Michael Yon:

One of the biggest problems with the Iraq War is that politics has frequently triumphed over truth. For instance, we went into Iraq with shoddy intelligence (at best), no reconstruction plan, and perhaps half as many troops as were required. We refused to admit that an insurgency was growing, until the country collapsed into anarchy and civil war. Now the truth is that Iraq is showing real progress on many fronts: Al Qaeda is being defeated and violence is down and continuing to decrease. As a result, the militias have lost their reason for existence and are getting beaten back or co-opted. Shia, Sunni and Kurds are coming together -- although with various stresses -- under the national government. If progress continues at this rate, it is very possible that before 2008 is out, we can finally say "the war has ended."

This comes as part of Yon's offer to tour Iraq with U.S. Senators—including the Presidential candidates—so that they can make informed decisions regarding the progress of the conflict.

If Yon is accurate, then Democrats (including Barack Obama) who continue to insist that the war is lost are going to lose all of their credibility in coming months. They will of course try to pivot, and make up some excuse to take credit for the success of operations in Iraq if such a situation develops.

History will not remember pro-defeat politicians or activists kindly.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:09 PM | Comments (10)

May 29, 2008

Marine Removed From Duty For Proselytizing in Fallujah

From Multi-National Force – West PAO, via email:

CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq – A Coalition force service member was removed from his duties today amid concerns from Fallujah's citizens regarding reports of inappropriate conduct.

Multi-National Force - West initiated an investigation into reports that a coin with a Bible verse written in Arabic was distributed to Iraqi citizens as they passed through a Fallujah entry control point. If the allegation is substantiated, appropriate action will be taken.

"Regulations prohibit members of the coalition force from proselytizing any religion, faith or practices," said Col. Bill Buckner, MNC-I spokesman, "and our troops are trained on those guidelines before they deploy."

"This has our full attention," said Col. James L. Welsh, chief of staff, Multi-National Force - West. "We deeply value our relationship with the local citizens and share their concerns over this serious incident."

This was reported earlier today by McClatchy, but quite frankly, when a news organization runs items under the tagline "truth to power," by an author also published by al Jazeera, I like to get confirmation first. I've got a request in for more details on this, and will update again if they have additional information.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:49 PM | Comments (3)

Pelosi: Surge Failed, Iran Rules Iraq

The special kind of delusion it takes to believe that Iraq was irretrievably lost in 2006 is still alive and well and in positions of leadership in the Democratic Party.

Speaking with the San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi insisted that the surge failed, and insists that if there is any progress, it is because Iran allowed it.

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn't happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn't accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

Cue the flaming skull.

Pelosi's needful delusions means that dictator-loving, Jew-hating 9/11 conspiracy-theorist Cindy Sheehan is not the most insane candidate vying for California's Eight District House seat.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:07 PM | Comments (11)

Moon: Operative Word in Iraq is "Hope." Obama: Let's Change That.

Despite their best intentions and willing accomplices in some press outlets, Democrats have apparently been unable to convince the international community that time stopped in Iraq in 2006.

"Notable progress" has been made in Iraq despite persistent problems, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday at an international summit to promote peace in the violence-wracked country.

"If we were asked to use just one word to describe the situation in Iraq today, I would choose the word 'hope,'" Ban said at the Stockholm, Sweden, conference. "Iraq is stepping back from the abyss that we feared most."

Barack Obama, of course, refuses to see any signs of progress in Iraq as a matter of policy and self-interest. His campaign is wedded to the leftmost fringe of the Democratic Party, who insist that failure is the only acceptable opinion in Iraq. The freshman senator from Illinois still publicly advocates headlong retreat from Iraq within 16 months of taking office if elected, and will not be swayed by stark warnings from international experts and regional governments that such a retreat would reverse all the gains paid for by coalition casualties, and perhaps trigger events as severe as a regional war that would impact energy markets and economies globally.

Right now, the greatest threat to Iraq's future isn't Iran, militants, or sectarian divides, but an inexperienced defeatist from Chicago.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:28 AM | Comments (2)

May 28, 2008

Just the Facts, Sam

Would someone please provide ABC News' Sam Donaldson with some facts?

It is perhaps progress in this commentary piece for a journalist to admit that Obama needs schooling— I do find it amusing that he refers to McCain as "the professor" and Obama as "his callow student"—but he grossly overestimates the size of al Sadr's faltering organization by an enormous amount, while downplaying Madhi Army defeats at the hands of the Iraqi security forces in recent weeks.

Iraq will almost certainly be one of the central issues in November -- if McCain is lucky it will remain relatively calm with casualties relatively low. But there is a wildcard named Moqtada al-Sadr, the 34-year-old Shiite leader of a 2 million man army.

When the surge began, al-Sadr instructed his army to lie low. Why fight an increased American force? But we all saw what happened a few weeks ago when al-Sadr loosed his men in Bashra and Bagdad -- violence flared, casualties spiked -- before calling another truce.

I'd like for Mr. Donaldson to explain where he got a figure of 2 million for the collection of neighborhood militias, street gangs, and "special groups" that make up the JAM (Jaish al Mahdi). Most estimates of the group have not put numbers larger than roughly 60,000 strong at any point in the conflict, and present numbers are said to be in rapid decline even now because of their growing unpopularity among Iraqi Shia.

I'd also like Donaldson to justify his dishonest portrayal of events in Basra and Baghdad. In both cities the Madhi Army suffered horrific losses at the hands of Iraqi security forces before suing for peace out of a sense of self preservation, and in both cities, Iraqi soldiers and police continued to relentlessly push into neighborhoods formerly dominated by Madhi Army thugs event after these "treaties" were agreed upon. In Basra, Iraqi government forces now rule virtually uncontested as they continue to carry out targeted strikes against wanted members of the Madhi Army. GoI security forces entered Sadr City with an unexpectedly large number of soldiers equipped with heavy armor, surprising the militiamen, who have yet to formulate a response.

Donaldson is obviously as much an Obama cheerleader as he is a journalist, but his 37-years in the business don't give him the right to make up his own reality.

Stick the facts, Sam. One Dan Rather at a time is enough.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:19 PM | Comments (6)

Always Back a Winner

Iraqi soldiers carry M-16s as they stand guard in Sadr City. AFP Photo by Ali Yussef

If the Iraq War is "lost" as journalists, politicians, and other Democrats continue to shrilly insist, then why is the Iraqi military choosing American weapons?

It isn't because American M16s are better than AK-47s for the needs of the Iraqi military (they aren't), but because Iraqis are impressed by American soldiers and want to emulate them.

Do you think they would be so eager to adapt our gear if we were losing?

Me neither.


Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:40 AM | Comments (16)

May 23, 2008

Hairballs and Hellfires

In what I think is a fairly well-balanced article about the significant increase in the use of U.S. Hellfire missiles during the recent campaign against Shiite militiamen in Baghdad's Sadr City came this utterly bizarre claim:

One of Zahara's uncles, Dhia Rahi Shaie al-Koreishi, 34, a taxi driver, and her grandmother, Um Fadhil al-Koreishi, were killed by the blast.

"The heart of this family has been ripped out," said Alaa Rahi Shaie, 29, another uncle, who was stoic in describing the death of his brother. "This is his blood," he said, indicating red splotches in front of his home. "And the remains of his head are over there."

He pointed at a large mound of dirt. A group of young boys dug out the remains and then showed visitors a black bag filled with clumps of hair and scalp.

Family members and neighbors said they didn't see anyone in the area fire rockets. Two black funeral banners hung outside the battered home to honor the dead.

I'm sure some of my readers are more familiar with Muslim burial rites than I (just about anyone would be), but I've always been under the impression that Muslims were very careful to respect the dead and bury them as intact as possible shortly after their demise. Banners honoring the dead are nice. Not treating their remains like kabob scraps is nicer.

Does the claim here of the remains of Dhia Rahi Shaie al-Koreishi's head being unceremoniously dumped in a sack and buried by the family in a dirt pile where children perform ad-hoc exhumations strike anyone else as being odd, even for what we've heard of Iraq?

As for the apparent premise of the article that AGM-114M Hellfire II missiles take an inordinate number of civilian lives... well, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Hellfires are preferred for being one of the most accurate missiles currently deployed, and it has the added benefit of having a smallish explosive warhead, making it somewhat less dangerous than some other weapons systems that we could deploy.

The Post does not make any attempt to distinguish how many of the 251 Iraqis killed by Hellfire missiles were Shiite militiamen, Iranian-trained " Special Groups" operatives, and how many were real non-combatant civilians.

While the Post article was less than clear on this point, it seemed possible that Uncle brains-in-a-bag could have been one of the two men loading rockets into a vehicle who were watched for hours before being killed, and grandma might have simply had the misfortune of having her son followed home by a missile. Or they could have been innocent bystanders... we simply don't know.

We do know that the video accompanying the article shows several strikes on obviously armed fighters (including a large group caught red-handed firing rockets), with no obvious civilians nearby. Still, in urban combat civilians will always run the risk of being casualties, and we are making attempts to minimize that possibility now through tactical decisions made, and in the future via new weapons systems. The 5.3 lbs Spike missile, at just over two-feet long will hopefully provide just as much precision with less collateral fragmentation than the Hellfire in future urban conflicts.

Even then, the best advice for civilian in urban conflict areas is simple: don't stand to close militiamen and terrorists.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:03 PM | Comments (7)

May 22, 2008

Welcome to the Show!

Yochi J. Dreazen posts an article titled U.S. Delays Report on Iran Arms in the Wall Street Journal, May 21:

The U.S. military, in a shift, has postponed the release of a report detailing allegations of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents, according to people familiar with the matter.

The military had initially planned to publicize the report several weeks ago but instead turned the dossier over to the Iraqi government, these people said. The Iraqis are using the information to pressure Tehran to curb the flow of Iranian weaponry and explosives into Iraq, these people said.

Me, writing here at Confederate Yankee on May 8 in a post titled Why You Won't See the Iranian Weapons We've Captured in Iraq:

...hopes of a diplomatic solution between Iran and Iraq have forestalled the U.S. military press conference displaying captured weaponry first expected in Baghdad over a week ago.

The press conference was delayed in hopes that an Iraqi delegation to Tehran bearing evidence of Iranian weapons captured by U.S. and Iraqi forces in recent fighting could resolve the issue as a matter between the two neighboring states.

Unsurprisingly, Iran has disputed the evidence, and as a result, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered a special committee to compile evidence captured by both American and Iraqi forces. Once the evidence is compiled, it is hoped that this would help inform the committee in putting forth a coherent Iraqi policy on Iranian involvement in smuggling weapons into Iraq. That policy will be presented to the Iranian government in hopes of stopping Iranian smuggling of weapons and preclude a conflict between the two nations, according to U.S. military sources. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-88 that claimed approximately one million lives when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, and the political goals of neither Shia-dominated government would be well-served by a return to conflict.

Perhaps by June, the media will also come to my conclusion on what this means to Iranq/Iran relations, as well.

It is getting harder and harder for the media to keep up with the turn of events in Iraq. Many had been wedded to the "quagmire" theory of assumed stasis leading to assured defeat and withdrawal, a theory still coveted by most senior Democrats and the online activist left. They bitterly cling to this theory because of the amount of political capital they have invested in it, even though that theory is being directly countered by evidence mounting at a blistering pace.

Iraq is not free from terror or outside influence and will not be for years to come, but the facts are that the insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and rogue militias in Iraq are collapsing before the onslaught of increasingly fierce and competent Iraqi security forces, civilian-provided intelligence, and gutsy civilian leadership, backed by U.S. forces. We'll leave it for the historians to decide at which point the corner was turned and victory was assured, but some things are certain.

Anyone still attempting to claim that coalition and Iraqi forces are fighting in a lost cause or a endless quagmire as of mid-May, 2008, is doing so in direct opposition to the facts on the ground.

Your only response should be wondering what they are trying to sell you, and why.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (9)

May 20, 2008

Bush to Attack Iran Before Leaving Office

So says the Jerusalem Post, citing Army Radio, citing an anonymous Israeli government official, citing someone he says is "a senior member of the president's entourage."

Why, it's just like hearing it from Bush directly!

Responsible journalists don't run stories this poorly sourced as a rule, but exceptions are almost always made when the stories are sensational enough, and the story is something that journalists, editors, and many readers want to believe. That is why variations of this story of an impending attack on Iran have been recurring for the past couple of years, and no doubt will continue until President Bush leaves 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, at which point the same rumors will be passed down to (hopefully) President McCain.

The story repeats because elements of it ring true enough for those convinced that a military strike against against the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism and arms used to kill American soldiers since 1983 is an act of a fascist dictatorship, and also for those that have the good sense to recognize that reducing the capabilities of a rogue nuclear and asymmetrical warfare threat promising genocide as a matter of state policy is a common sense act of survival for the greater good of man.

It is quite possible that certain events before January of 2009 could trigger preemptive strikes upon Iran by the present Administration, Israel, or perhaps even both nations acting in concert. I rather doubt such rumor-mongering helps anyone, however, beyond creating full employment in Palestinian phone banks calling on behalf of the pacifist candidate Obama.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:28 AM | Comments (7)

May 16, 2008

Totten On Yon

I don't think they could possibly find someone more qualified to review Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq than Michael Totten, another independent journalist who has spent and extensive amount of time in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Moment of Truth in Iraq

Read Totten's review The Real Iraq, and if you haven't yet read Yon's book, or would like to donate copies to your local library so that other people can, click the image above to order from Amazon.com.

I'd note that both Yon and Totten are independent journalists, and traveling to and through combat zones to bring you stories the media won't tell is both expensive and dangerous, so please consider contributing at their sites, Michael Totten, and Michael Yon.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:18 AM | Comments (1)

May 14, 2008

The Bloodless Bullets of Baghdad

I suspect that this is less a case of "fauxtography" than a curious physiological response, but Associated Press cameraman Karim Kadim captured this photo of a Sadr City woman having a bullet removed from her forearm.

Here is an enlarged and cropped version of the photo as tweaked in PhotoShop to focus on the wound. I got as close as I could without distorting the image significantly.

As you can see, the bullet is being pulled nose first, suggesting that it penetrated though the outside of the woman's arm and passed through the interosseous membrane between the ulna and radius to stop at some point on the inside part of her forearm.

All combat rifle cartridges commonly used should have fully penetrated this woman's arm completely with a significant (and ghastly) exit wound if not impeded by either hitting a barrier of some sort, or coming from an extreme distance away. I'd love to see a higher resolution version of this photo to see if we could determine what kind of rifle cartridge this was.

Whatever the bullet is, I'm pretty sure it isn't one of these.

5/20 Update: After speaking with Associated Press resources in New York, trauma surgeons, and other resources in Iraq, this photo is confirmed as the extraction of a bullet that hit the woman in the photo after being fired from a considerable distance, and after the bullet had expended much of its energy. Additional still footage is said to exist showing the entry wound, and there is also said to be videotape of the extraction.

This was not a staged photo, just a strange physiological response to an uncommon wound.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | Comments (14)

Hussayn's Story

Despite feigned ignorance of the facts, the media knows that Muqtada's militias are being crushed, that al-Masri's terrorists are being picked off, and Iraqi's of all sects, Sunni Shia and Kurd, have newfound trust in a newly-muscular Iraqi government and military.

Iraq's want peace, are are willing to destroy the belligerents among themselves if it leads to a prosperous future. Here is one Iraqi's story.

More, please.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:46 AM | Comments (2)

Gripes of Wrath

Liberal bloggers and journalists put their inability to focus on substantive issues on display yesterday along with a blind hatred for President Bush, thanks to a catalytic interview yesterday by Mike Allen of The Politico and Yahoo News.

The interview was entitled "Bush warns of Iraq disaster," and in it, President Bush warned of the regional consequences of the kind of a premature, headlong retreat from Iraq. Such a retreat is favored by Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has pledged to withdraw American forces in 16 months.

Such a withdrawal window is not logistically feasible without abandoning costly American military equipment and supplies, and the cost of destabilizing Iraq's security is feared as a threat by every country in the region, and cannot be overemphasized.

Iraqis fear a return to sectarian conflict that may rapidly escalate into the genocide of hundred of thousands and the displacement of millions if their nation collapses due to a too-quick, timetable-based American withdrawal such as the one Obama has repeatedly promised.

Turkey fears an attempt by Iraqi Kurds to form their own country in the wake of a U.S. retreat, and would invade northern Iraq (they are already making multi-day raids, along with air and artillery strikes). Jordan, saturated with refugees only just returning to Iraq in past months due to the success of the surge, would face a new flood of Iraq refugees that would threaten the nation's economy and national security. Syria would face similar mass immigration problems, compounded by possible Turkish incursions to root out Kurdish rebels in northeastern Syria.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, already sharing sharp words over Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon, will engage in a proxy war in Iraq that many expect may erupt into an open regional war.

Such a conflict would shut down Persian Gulf shipping and drive the price of oil astronomically high (how would you like $10/gallon gasoline, or higher?), impacting financial markets worldwide, negatively impacting billions of people, with those in developing nations hardest hit.

In short, the headlong retreat promised by Barack Obama will plunge the Middle East into conflict and wreck economies worldwide, including our own. It would be, in every sense, the disaster President Bush mention in his interview.

How did liberal members of the media and bloggers react to the interview? They ignored a direct policy conflict of global importance between a sitting U.S. President and his would-be successor, in order to write grade school-level snark.

I expect very little from the media. I see they delivered.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (45)

May 12, 2008

Corners Turned

Moqtada al-Sadr, the figurehead leader of the Mahdi Army that fled to Tehran long ago, has lost Basra. It must have been heartbreaking for the New York Times to make the admission that the Iraqi Army and Police had pounded Iranian-back Shia militias and criminal gangs into submission, but give them credit; they did report it.

Iraqi and American forces continue to pound gangs and Iranian-trained and equipped "Special Groups" in the massive Baghdad slum called Sadr City. Fighting continues despite al-Sadr's impotent call for a truce, and an "anaconda strategy" of squeezing out combatants while choking off of their resupply lines continued, as a wall slicing off the southern end of the slum reached 80% completion.

In Mosul, an Iraqi-led, American-backed assault on Mosul, al Qaeda's last urban stronghold in Iraq, has begun, targeting the last significant bastions of al Qaeda and aligned insurgents in Iraq after the success of the "surge" in the Baghdad region and the Sunni civilian uprising against al Qaeda in Al Anbar over the past year.

The war in Iraq is not over, but no serious person can argue that Iraqi government forces and the coalition military forces backing them are not now dictating the terms and tempo of the conflict in Iraq. They and are imposing their will with considerable success upon areas deemed as unapproachable and lost as recently as weeks and months ago, and have won the support of the overwhelming majority of an Iraqi people tired of war and extremist ideologies.

And yet...

We still have an entire political party predicating their future success on a U.S. and Iraqi government defeat in Iraq. They abhor American soldiers with a spittle-flecked passion, find them to be thugs and criminals of the highest order, and deep down in their heart of hearts, think that American solders would torture innocent civilians and kill merely for sport, if only the watchful eyes of the media were no there to keep them in check.

They view a certain rising American politician as their only salvation in a regional conflict that vexes their very souls. They see his promises of "hope" and "change" and unconditional dialog with Nasrallah or Ahmadinejad and other regional leaders as a gateway to the kind of world they want to live in. They fear John McCain will prove to be a second George Bush.

But enough about the Iranian mullacracy.

I'm just glad we don't have Americans that act this way.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:37 AM | Comments (9)

May 09, 2008

As If There Was Ever Any Doubt...

...that anti-war protesters targeting a Marine recruiting station in Berkley California are losers.

Members of the women's group began bringing placards and pink banners to the center Friday, where they are expected to rally later in the morning, armed with spells and pointy hats for a "Witches, clowns and sirens day."

"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.

The group's Mother's Day week of themed protests, which included days to galvanize grannies and bring-your-daughter-to-protest, appears to have done little to boost its flagging numbers.

All those drugs taken in '68 really had an effect, didn't they?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:33 AM | Comments (4)

May 08, 2008

Why You Won't See the Iranian Weapons We've Captured in Iraq

Starting over a year ago with the discovery of a new kind of roadside bomb—EFPs or explosively-formed projectiles—American commanders in Iraq began believing that Iran was supplying weapons to militants in Iraq. That belief grew as more munitions were captured, including 34 unfired rockets captured on July 12, 2007 that were said to be of Iranian origin.

In recent weeks American forces have claimed to have captured even more Iranian weapons, including those that were new, apparently manufactured in 2008. In addition, Iraqi government forces are said to have captured a significant number of weapons of suspected Iranian manufacture during military options in and around Basra over the past month. On top of the weaponry captured, recently-released information claims that Shiite militiamen were trained by Hezbollah in Iranian terrorist camps near Tehran, and that some of those militants have been captured, and have resided in U.S. military custody for several months providing valuable intelligence.

But if solid physical evidence of Iranian military interference has been captured, then why hasn't that evidence been presented to independent experts for verification? Why hasn't that material been presented to a skeptical world media, still unwilling to believe governmental claims at face value after Saddam Hussein's WMDs turned out to be ghosts?

The answer is both simple and pragmatic: hopes of a diplomatic solution between Iran and Iraq have forestalled the U.S. military press conference displaying captured weaponry first expected in Baghdad over a week ago.

The press conference was delayed in hopes that an Iraqi delegation to Tehran bearing evidence of Iranian weapons captured by U.S. and Iraqi forces in recent fighting could resolve the issue as a matter between the two neighboring states.

Unsurprisingly, Iran has disputed the evidence, and as a result, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered a special committee to compile evidence captured by both American and Iraqi forces. Once the evidence is compiled, it is hoped that this would help inform the committee in putting forth a coherent Iraqi policy on Iranian involvement in smuggling weapons into Iraq. That policy will be presented to the Iranian government in hopes of stopping Iranian smuggling of weapons and preclude a conflict between the two nations, according to U.S. military sources. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-88 that claimed approximately one million lives when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, and the political goals of neither Shia-dominated government would be well-served by a return to conflict.

Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiyar Zebari is urging Iran and the United States to rejoin stalled security talks after U.S. officials described negotiating with Iran "meaningless" without Iran stopping military interference in Iraq, and Tehran accusing the U.S. of "massacring" Iraqis as operations in Baghdad's Sadr City against Shia militias continue. The resumation of talks is presently deemed unlikely, but if the Iraqi committee completes its mission and determines that Iran has in fact been supplying training and weaponry to Shia militias presently fighting against the Iraqi military forces, the Iraqis will have a diplomatic weapon to use against Tehran that may force the Iranian government to stop its suspected supply of weaponry into Iraq, and it's training of Shia militiamen by Hezbollah terrorists and Iran's military.

The diplomatic pressure the Iraqi commission could bring to bear with it's findings could deepen divides in Iran's government between moderates and hardliners. Moderate former President Mohammad Khatami has recently made statements that some are interpreting as an admission that the current hardline regime as supplying weaponry and training to militants in Iraq and elsewhere.

Iran's weapons may be taking the lives of American and Iraqi troops in Iraq right now, but with the Iraqi government's creation of a committee to build an official Iraqi policy position on Iran's interference, Iran's weapons may turn out to be a greater diplomatic weapon for Iraq.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:13 PM | Comments (30)

April 25, 2008

New Iranian Weapons Captured in Iraq


Iranian 107mm rockets recovered after attack on U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq, July 2007

Playing a very dangerous game:

The U.S. military says it has found caches of newly made Iranian weapons in Iraq, leading senior officials to conclude Tehran is continuing to funnel armaments into Iraq despite its pledges to the contrary.

Officials in Washington and Baghdad said the purported Iranian mortars, rockets and explosives had date stamps indicating they were manufactured in the past two months. The U.S. plans to publicize the weapons caches in coming days. A pair of senior commanders said a presentation was tentatively planned for Monday.

The allegations, which couldn't be independently verified, mark a further hardening of U.S. rhetoric on Iran, which senior American officials now describe as the greatest long-term threat to Iraq.

This month, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iranian support for Shiite extremist groups had grown. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said for the first time that he believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knew about the shipments.

Iran has long denied that its government knowingly funneled weapons into Iraq or trained Shiite militants there. It has derided the U.S. claims as propaganda. Several senior U.S. military officials said the weapons caches would undercut the Iranian denials and provide new evidence of continuing Iranian support for Shiite militants across Iraq.

"You can see the manufacturing dates right on the armaments themselves," one senior commander in Baghdad said. "These are very clearly weapons that were made in the last month or so."

Markings, of course, are easy to fake, and the truther fringe of the "Bush lied, people died!" sect are sure to accuse the Administration and/or elements of the military with doing just that. Much harder to fake, however, are the materials used, certain tool marks, and other mechanical and electrical components. Taken together, the component pieces form a unique signature that EOD experts can read like a fingerprint. As far as our military is concerned, the markings only serve to confirm what explosive experts could already tell from even unmarked weapons.

This is a stupid mistake by Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime, coming at a time when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is celebrating stunning military successes in Basra and other parts of the Shia south against Iranian-backed "special groups" within Muqtada al-Sadr's Madhi Army militia. The recovery of this cache can only help Iraq's central government grow even more cohesive, upsetting hopes for a failed Iraqi state and U.S. defeat.

Iran's foreign policy is turning out to have been very poorly calculated as of late. One can only wonder what their next gaffe will be, and what affect it may have on the hardline regime in Tehran.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:06 AM | Comments (70)

April 22, 2008

How Many Military Suicides?

The San Francisco Chronicle posts this without question:

More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week while the government stalls in granting returning troops the mental health treatment and benefits to which they are entitled, veterans advocates told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco.

The rights of hundreds of thousands of veterans are being violated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, "an agency that is in denial," and by a government health care system and appeals process for patients that is "broken down," Gordon Erspamer, lawyer for two advocacy groups, said in an opening statement at the trial of a nationwide lawsuit.

He said veterans are committing suicide at the rate of 18 a day - a number acknowledged by a VA official in a Dec. 15 e-mail - and the agency's backlog of disability claims now exceeds 650,000, an increase of 200,000 since the Iraq war started in 2003.

We're looking at the conflation of multiple claims here, so lets take them one at a time:

More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week while the government stalls in granting returning troops the mental health treatment and benefits to which they are entitled, veterans advocates told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco.

There is no way to get a constant figure of X per week, but if they are presuming that 120/week figure from the beginning of the Iraq War on March 20, 2003, we're talking 1860 days (not including today), rounding down to 265 weeks * 120 suicides/week = 31,800 suicides of Iraq and Afghan War veterans.

If we instead presume they arrived at 120/week starting with the October 7, 2001 war with Afghanistan, we're looking at 2389 days (not including today), rounding down to 341 weeks * 120 suicides/week = 41,920 suicides of Iraq and Afghan War veterans.

Are they trying to tell us between 31,000-41,000 modern war veterans have committed suicide, and we're just now starting to notice, five years later?

* * *

The 18/suicides a day figure seems to quietly leave out which wars are covered, and could be construed to assume the aging veterans of WWII, Korean, Vietnam, and other campaigns as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. It would seem prudent to assume that many of these may be due to issues perhaps unrelated to PTSD caused a half-century or more before in many instances.

If they do mean all veterans, regardless of war, but measure from the start of the Afghan war at a rate of 18 suicides a day, we wind up with 43,002 suicides for all veterans of all wars during this time period. If we instead use the 18 suicides/day figure from the beginning of the Iraq War, we wind up with 33,480 suicides for all veterans of all wars during this time period.

Are they trying to tell us between 33,000-43,000 U.S. military war veterans have committed suicide in the past 5-8 years, and we're just now starting to notice?

According to the math cited here, the VA may be shorting veterans on care, but they excel at hidden burials.

We are not treating out veterans with nearly the care and respect for their service as we should, but I'd be shocked if we were losing as many as these figures suggest.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:16 PM | Comments (19)

April 14, 2008

Yon: Moment of Truth

Was a busy weekend and I didn't get a chance to get into my copy of Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq beyond skimming a few pages, though I'm going to try to carve time out of my schedule to read it tonight. If it is anything like his dispatches, I'll probably devour it in one extended sitting.

Moment of Truth in Iraq

It is already up to #68 on Amazon's bestseller list and Glenn Reynolds notes that is #1 in military books (and that it is excellent. He also notes that Mike has a page dedicated to help promoting the book so it gets in your local bookstores and libraries, and I'd simply note that if you really want the local library to stock it so that others might read a perspective of the war they might not get anywhere else, you can always buy multiple copies of Moment of Truth in Iraq and donate them directly to the library yourself.

As you already know by now, Mike is supported by his readers and his readers alone, so by purchasing his book, you're supporting his work.

Besides... wouldn't it send a message to Congress if we could make a book promoting the efforts of the Next Greatest Generation the #1 book in America?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:34 AM | Comments (1)

April 11, 2008

In the Mail...

My friend Iraq War combat journalist Michael Yon just published his newest book, Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope.

He sent me a copy, which was waiting for me when I got home last night. I'm going to try to carve some time out in my schedule to read it at some point this weekend or early next week and read it so I can give you a review.

Mike has spent more time embedded with soldiers in Iraq than any other journalist period, and therefore has a very good idea of what is actually happening in Iraq, something that rational people should consider when they read this article from him in today's Wall Street Journal.


Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (7)

April 08, 2008

Biden PWN3D Crocker! ...In the Community-Based Reality

For reasons rational people will never fathom, lefty bloggers and blog readers are filled with glee over, well, this:

There was once a blog called Joe Biden Is Thugged Out. (I swear this is true.) Biden just proved why. He asked Ryan Crocker, who used to be ambassador to Pakistan, whether it would be better for U.S. interests to go after Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border or Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Crocker, in an impossible political position -- give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration's answer and look like a fool -- dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: "I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

Biden "forced him down" how, exactly?

Clearly Ackerman, the flickering bulbs at Think Progress and other gloating liberals didn't actually hear how Crocker responded.

Let's go to the videotape:

BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?

CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is--

BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out, you had a choice, the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there, and said, 'Mr. Ambassador, you can eliminate every al Qaeda source in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or every al Qaeda personnel in Iraq, which would you pick?'

CROCKER: Well, given the progress that has been made against al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive and not in a position as far--

BIDEN: Which would you pick?

CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

So despite the cleverly truncated quote at Think Progress (seriously, when are lefty bloggers going to tire of being set up and used as fools by these shills?) and Ackerman's own deceptive forgetfulness, what Crocker actually told Biden is that our military had severely damaged the operational capabilities of al Qaeda in Iraq (by 75-percent in the last year alone, according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry) and knocked it into a defensive posture where it is far less of a threat.

How much less of a threat?

According to StrategyPage.com, Osama bin Laden admitted defeat in Iraq on Oct 22, 2007, a sentiment that Marine Colonel Richard Simcock shared contemporaneously as it related to al Qaeda's former strongholds in al Anbar in specific. Battered, tattered, and lethally-harassed by coalition soldiers at night and former Sunni Iraqi allies during the day, al Qaeda's morale in Iraq is crushed, along with most of it's capabilities.

Thanks to Iraqi and coalition efforts, Al Qaeda in Iraq is beaten, fragmented, and on the verge of a final collapse, according to the terror organization itself. With this enemy almost defeated, it is only common sense that Crocker would select the remaining al Qaeda hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border as being the greater threat.

I guess Ackerman can pretend that Crocker's quite logical response--to advocate the targeting the terrorists that are still alive, instead of those we have already dispatched--is humiliating to the Bush administration, but outside his insular nutroots community, in a land where common sense prevails and truncated quotes are not swallowed at face value time and again, Crocker got the better of this exchange by merely pointing out that we've run out of al Qaeda in Iraq to kill.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:44 PM | Comments (19)

As Sadr Collapses...

It becomes increasingly more amusing to watch the "impartial" international news media attempt to spin away unmistakable signs of progress in Iraq. The latest example of this sad phenomena is Reuters' account of Muqtada al Sadr's threat to end a ceasefire:

Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr threatened on Tuesday to end a truce he imposed on his militia last year, raising the prospect of worsening violence just as top U.S. officials prepare to testify on Iraq in Washington.

Sadr urged his Mehdi Army to "continue your jihad and resistance" against U.S. forces, although he did not spell out if this was an explicit call for attacks on American soldiers.

His warning came a day after Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki threatened to bar Sadr's movement from political life if the anti-American cleric did not disband his militia.

Despite the more than 7-month-old ceasefire, Sadr's followers have clashed with Iraqi troops and U.S. forces in the south of the country and Baghdad in the past two weeks in the country's worst violence since the first half of 2007.

al Sadr's Madhi Army suffered hundreds of KIAs—some estimate place as a high as 1%-2% of his entire militia—in operations across southern Iraq in recent weeks. The failure of the militia and the success of Iraqi forces has encouraged top Sunni, Shia and Kurdish members of the Iraqi government to form a unified front that has demanded that al Sadr disband the Madhi Army, or run the risk of having his party being disbarred from Iraqi politics.

Sadr's threat to end the truce is the most desperate political option available to him, and one of the few options he has left. His power has been drawn largely from the threat of withdrawing the ceasefire, but if that ceasefire is withdrawn, al Sadr has few more cards to play, and the resulting combat would likely mirror last recent combat on a much larger scale, perhaps resulting in far more physical destruction to his forces.

Sadr did not win in Basra, and runs the risk of having his militia destroyed if he decides to send it into combat again against an Iraqi Army that is far more competent than al Sadr's militiamen.

Muqtada al Sadr's relevance in Iraq will be determined by the choices he makes in coming days. The only real real question is how much his relevance will be diminished.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:07 AM | Comments (5)

April 04, 2008

Rep. McHenry Calls Green Zone Security Guard "Two-bit"

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) has referred to a "two-bit security guard" in the Green Zone in Baghdad who would not let him into the gym without having the proper ID.

What a jerk.

His political opponent Lance Sigmon is capitalizing on the statement, as he should, but I think those who are claiming that McHenry belittled a soldier are probably not accurate, or are at least jumping the gun.

The Green Zone certainly has American personnel, but many are Iraqis or foreign security personnel.

Somehow, I don't think the liberals at Think Progress who have built a reputation lately of getting the facts wrong would care nearly as much if McHenry had uttered his comments to a security guard contracted through Blackwater, even though they face many of the same risks.

Update: Yep, Amanda at Think Progress screwed up again. The guard in question was not a soldier, but instead was what liberals like to refer to as a "hired killer," or as the rest of us call them, a security contractor.

Amanda either needs a break, a new fact-checker, or a new career.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:59 PM | Comments (12)

April 02, 2008

Chinese Provide IAEA With Info on Iranian Nukes

No detail at all in the report, but I think it logical to assume that if the news was that "there's nothing going on," then China would not have bothered to contact the IAEA. The assumption must be that Iran is progressing with their nuclear weapons program, and that China is growing uncomfortable with that progress.

It will be interesting to see what slips out about the details of the Iranian program provided by China to the IAEA. Have the Chinese now determined that Iran has become a threat to their national security as well?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (4)

March 29, 2008

Yon on the War

Michael Yon is in Mosul, where we thought the bulk of the fighting in Iraq would be over coming weeks as Iraqi Army units supported by American forces are preparing to route out the last of al Qaeda's significant urban presence.

I shot him an email yesterday to see what he may have heard, and he got back to me this briefly this morning to point me to telephone call he recorded with Glenn Reynolds. You can hear it here.

He's also got a new book coming coming out, and you can follow the links to pre-order it at the link above.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:09 AM | Comments (1)

March 27, 2008

Great Moments in Military Procurement History. Or Not.

I have a pistol made in 1927, and have owned battle rifles and carbines made from 1945 to the Vietnam War-era. In these firearms I've more often fired modern ammunition of recent commercial manufacture, but I've also used surplus military ammunition, decades old. For many collectors of military firearms, shooting aging surplus ammunition is a commonplace proposition, and the results are generally acceptable.

There are however, several wars on, and civilian shooters in the United States are having to compete with government contractors who scrounge up that foreign surplus ammunition in large quantities to provide to U.S. allies under contract. The result is higher prices for quality surplus ammunition, or in some instances, little serviceable ammunition at any price.

The New York Times, God bless them, actually broke an interesting story today about one of those ammunition contractors, a 22-year-old Miami man who now seems to be in a great deal of trouble for selling Chinese ammunition he scrounged up on the world market and repackaged, which is a violation of federal law and his contract.

The relevant parts of this story are how the man in question, Efraim Diveroli, slipped through the cracks of the procurement system to become a supplier, and how some scrap-worthy ammunition was shipped to our allies. I'm sure as details of that SNAFU become available, they'll work to make sure that similar unvetted characters responding to vague RFPs can't game the system again.

I would take minor issue with the Times and other news outlets, however, for suggesting that older ammunition is inherently flawed or obsolete ammunition.

Ammunition can degrade over time based upon the chemical compounds used in its construction and the environmental variables under which it is stored. Ammunition manufactured to high standards and stored in specific, controlled conditions, however, can last almost indefinitely. Ammunition manufactured in the 1960s and properly stored can certainly still be viable and reliable, while ammunition created last week using substandard components may be scrap before it leaves the assembly line.

The author of the NY Times piece who broke the story, C.J. Chivers, deserves respect for some excellent investigative journalism.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:26 PM | Comments (15)

March 26, 2008

Misreporting the Second Recent Iraqi Offensive

One of the wonderful things about modern communications technologies is that just about anyone can comment about popular culture and breaking news events as they happen. The downside? Just about anyone can comment about popular culture and breaking news event as they happen, and some of them work for news agencies.

The best examples of why this isn't always a good idea are the short-sighted, knee-jerk reactions of some journalists and pundits to the recent crackdown by the Iraqi central government on rogue Shiite militias and criminal gangs supported by Iran that have been operating in Baghdad and southern Iraqi cities.

For months and years we've had critics of the Iraq War whining that American forces would always be forced to take the lead in combat, that Iraqis were lazy and untrainable, and that Iraqi security forces were too corrupt to ever be regarded as a competent stabilizing force against rogue militias, Iranian infiltrators, and criminal gangs.

And yet as Iraqi security forces moved into Basra and elsewhere to combat criminal gangs and militias extorting profits from the nation's oil industry meant for distribution to all Iraqi's by the central government, do we hear anyone critical of U.S. and British involvement in Iraq praising Iraqi government forces as they mount their own major operations with limited U.S. involvement?

No.

Instead we get McClatchy's Washington "Truth to Power" Bureau running a headline that the attacks were "threatening success of U.S. surge." The truth, of course, is the exact opposite of what McClatchy reports.

Because the surge was successful and coincided with the Sawha movement among Sunni tribes, al Qaeda has been pushed into Mosul and the surrounding Ninevah province, where Iraqi security forces took the lead weeks ago in an operation that hopes to surround, cut off, and kill the last significant Sunni terrorist strongholds in Iraq.

Because of the success of the surge and the increasing competence of Iraqi security forces, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decided that it was time to lead an offensive in Basra, a city long controlled by competing Shia militias that are often little more than criminal gangs. Maliki has given the militias 72 hours to lay down their arms or face "the most severe penalties."

Iraqi-led missions are targeting both Sunni and Shia extremists in hopes of asserting the monopoly of force any country must have for stability, moves that should be seen as encouraging for Iraq's long-term future.

Sadly, most reporters and ( like-minded bloggers) seemed bogged down in viewing the still-breaking news stories in Sadr City, Kut, Basra, and other Iraq cities through the prism of short-term U.S. domestic political consumption, an arena in which they would hope to exert a corrupting influence.

For many of these people, success is not an option, initiative is to be panned, and gains made are to be spun away or minimized until a Democrat wins the White House and the war can be properly lost.

Unfortunately for them, the Iraqis seem to be taking an acute interest in determining the future of their nation on their terms, not those terms dictated by the media, Iran and others championing defeat.

The Prime Minister of Iraq is all but publicly daring Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian allies to engage Iraqi government forces to determine the future of Iraq, a battle that the Iraq government's forces would win convincingly.

These are moments of growth for Iraq's fledgling democracy worth celebrating... providing of course, you want the nation to succeed.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:28 AM | Comments (49)

March 25, 2008

The Sadrists' Mistake

The Guardian claimed that the "surge" in Iraq was about to unravel because of strike threats from Sunni militiamen they reported last week, but if you head over to a newly-redesigned Pajamas Media today, you'll see that the threats of a strike were resolved weeks before the Guardian stories ran.

The stories were an attempt to grab defeat in the media while the threat of actual defeat on the ground seems ever more fleeting.

Yesterday, left-wing surrogate McClatchy Newspapers—they even has the ridiculous "Truth to Power" tagline—attempted to claim defeat from the opposite perspective, noting that some of the Sadrists in Iraq seem to be feeling a bit rambunctious after a long period of relative silence.

The left side of the blogosphere, always willing to latch on to even the hint of bad news without even pretending to vet their sources, were quick to declare this as reason 6,578,902 that we've already lost the war in Iraq and it is time for our troops to come home, or to at least within spitting distance.

Reality, of course, is another story.

It has long been known that at some point the Iraqi government would have to take on the criminal element that gravitated to the Sadrists, and unfortunately for these Sadrists, they waited far too long to engage. They haven't stood a chance of a military victory against IA forces for at least two years, which is why al Sadr himself continues to issue ceasefires from the safety of Tehran. Recent attempts by Sadrists to use threats and the force of arms for political ends is now likely to consolidate the power of the central government behind a string of Sadrist defeats in Basra and Baghdad.

Those on the left seem to think that any deviation from stasis in Iraq is a sign of failure, but the fact is that for a society to be stable, the government must first establish a monopoly of force.

Part of that involves either incorporating or destroying militias. In Sunni provinces, the Iraqi government is slowly incorporating the Sons of Iraq into both security and non-security positions even as they root-out the remains of al Qaeda. In Shiite areas including parts of Baghdad and Basra, this means eliminating the influence of criminal gangs hiding under al Sadr's banner.

The conflict isn't exactly a welcome development—even a temporary increase in violence will impact the innocent—but the longer-term consolidation of power by the federal government requires an eventual dissolution of Sadr's militia. Most hoped that such a dissolution of al Sadr's power would be purely political in nature, but the Sadrist gangs seem to have made the mistake of engaging Iraq's modernized security forces directly, the resolution of the long-expected inter-sect conflict will likely be more immediate than most expected, and much to Muqtada al-Sadr's dismay.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:18 AM | Comments (5)

March 20, 2008

Not Ready To End the Fight

Via AP at Hot Air, Marine Cpl. David Thibodeaux's stirring response to MoveOn.org and the Dixie Chicks.

Somehow, I don't think Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (or their supporters) will be big fans.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:56 AM | Comments (52)

March 11, 2008

Fallon Gonged in Favor of Petraeus

Admiral William Fallon, Commander, U.S. Central Command, is resigning:

Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, is resigning, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Gates said Fallon had asked him Tuesday morning for permission to retire and Gates agreed. Gates said the decision was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do."

Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Gates described as "ridiculous" any notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said "there is a misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.

"I don't think there were differences at all," Gates added.

I suspect that there will be those on the fringe left who will be screeching about how Fallon's resignation is the prelude to a preemptive war with Iran—probably before I even finish this sentence—no doubt suggested by a certain Esquire article that stated the quite fanciful claim that "it's left to Fallon--and apparently Fallon alone..." to keep Dubya from bombing Iran into the stone age.

Barnett seems to have completely overlooked the fact that it has been Tehran, not Washington, that has publicly promised not just war, but genocide (but then, in the same article, it was Burnett that claimed Fallon was "waging peace" with the Chinese in his prior assignment, even as Fallon's replacement expressed concern over massive increases in Chinese military spending, so consider the source), but that probably has little to do with his resignation at this time.

No, as Blackfive rightly notes, Fallon's retirement comes not because of friction with the Bush Administration (though there may have been some), but because General David Patraeus is coming to town, no doubt as the Administration's favored choice to lead Central Command after his implementation of COIN strategy in Iraq.

My guess? Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno, who executed the surge so well, backfills Petraeus as Commanding General, (MNF-I).

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:16 PM | Comments (7)

March 06, 2008

Homegrown IED Targets Manhattan Military Recruiting Station

The NY Times City Room blog has the latest details:

The police have attributed the blast to an improvised explosive device, and police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said the device had been placed in an ammunition box like the kind that can be bought at a military supply store. Mr. Kelly spoke with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg at a news conference at 9:30 a.m. in Times Square. The authorities are looking into a possible connection to two earlier bombings at foreign consulates in Manhattan, in 2005 and 2007. Official said that in today’s attack, a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the scene on a bicycle. Subways and traffic are running normally through Times Square.

They also have a useful slideshow of images from the scene, which gives us just enough information to start making some inferences about the bomb and the bomber.

Looking at images 1-3 in the slideshow, you'll note that the damage from the blast seems relatively minor. Image 1 give you a pretty good idea of precisely where the bomb was placed, as you can see how the shrapnel radiated out from a central point, which appears to have been (as we face the building) almost dead-center in front of the plate-glass window.

Slightly enlarging the same photo and cropping it to focus on the recruiting center front helps to see the central radiating point of the blast a bit better.

You'll also note in this closer view, and in the second and third images of the scene, that there was no attempt to make this an anti-personnel weapon, as there is no evidence of there being ball bearing, BBs, or another other sort of shrapnel that would form an intentional secondary blast mechanism.

The time of the blast was around 3:43 AM, when pedestrian traffic in the area is typically light and the recruiting station was closed. From the time of the blast and lack of shrapnel, we can make the guarded assumption that causing casualties was not the bomber's intention.

We can also infer that the bomber had no intention of destroying the targeted building as well, as the blast was small, and the ammunition can that carried the device could have easily held far more explosives.

From the choice of target, lack of shrapnel, and low amount of explosives used, I think it only logical to conclude that the blast was political in nature, a violent though purposefully less-lethal bomb, if you can ever call an improvised explosive device "less lethal." For these reasons, I doubt it was the act of Islamic extremists.

This was an act of domestic terrorism.

I do not, however, feel comfortable blaming any specific anti-war group for this act, or even pinning this as an anti-war act at this point in time.

Anti-war groups, in general, are non-violent in nature, and those that lean towards the anarchist fringe that are violence prone tend towards vandalism, and generally, don't have the technical expertise to manufacture even such a simple device.

Whoever built this bomb may have sympathies towards the anti-war movement and/or anti-military feelings, but I would be surprised to find them affiliated officially with any specific anti-war or anti-military group, and would be even more surprised if anyone inside one of these groups had advance knowledge of the attack.

There are some news accounts noting that there were similar minor blasts carried out against the Mexican and British consulates in New York in recent years, each using blackpowder inside inert hand grenade casings, also carried out by a bomber on a bicycle.

This seems quite plausible, but we won't know more until the FBI announces the findings of their investigation.

Update: A reminder, via Ace-of-Spades, that the peace-loving left isn't always so peace-leaving:

Thirty-Eight Years Ago Today

March 6, 1970 at 11:55 a.m.

Three members of the radical activist group known as the Weather Underground, Diana Oughton, Ted Gold and Terry Robbins, blew themselves straight to hell when the bomb they were building, which was intended to blow up a dance at Fort Dix, exploded in an otherwise quiet New York neighborhood.

Had they been better bomb-makers, instead of killing themselves, they would have killed an untold number of American soldiers. In the name of peace.

Luckily, the Weathermen's expertise at bomb-making left much to be desired.

The Weathermen's hatred of the United States manifested itself in the bombings of the U.S. Capitol building, New York City Police Headquarters, the Pentagon, and the National Guard offices in Washington, D.C. The Weathermen's leader, Bill Ayers summed up the Weathermen's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."

Yes, the Bill Ayer's above is the same man that has had Barack Obama as a dinner guest, and who served with Obama on the board of directors of the left-leaning Woods Fund from 1999 until 2002.

Diana Oughton, one of the deceased, was Ayer's girlfriend until some of the 100 pounds of dynamite they intended to use to bomb a non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix detonated.


Update: Hot Air has surveillance video of the bike-riding bomber approaching the recruiting center, and the NYPD thinks they have his bike.

Was the suspect smart enough to wipe his prints from the bike?

Update: The bomber sent an anti-war manifesto to eight NY Democratic Congressmen.

Update: Coincidence? Authorities are now saying the anti-war activist that mailed the "We did it!" letters to Congress had nothing to do with the recruiting center blast.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:48 AM | Comments (98)

March 05, 2008

Savages

I've watched for several days the story that has grown out of a short, grainy video that shows a Marine in Iraq throwing a puppy to its death.

The act shown in the video, whether it shows a real sadistic act of animal abuse or a Marine with a warped sense of humor throwing a stuffed animal, is sickening.

Perhaps even more sickening is the mob mentality that has overtaken some of those who have viewed the video, who took it upon themselves to post the names and home address of the Marine alleged to be in the video and that of his family members, inviting other Web vigilantes to commit violent acts against them.

It is understandable to be outraged by the act shown whether is if fake or real, but does any rational human being think that an appropriate response to such an act would be the rape or murder of innocent family members, as some have called for? As for the Marine at the center of the controversy, he is currently under protective custody because of threats against his life.

There seems to be far more outrage over this video of animal abuse than far more sadistic and frequent reports of greater acts of brutality committed against human civilians by militias, terrorists, insurgents, and criminals in Iraq. I wonder why that is.

Where are the Internet detectives on Digg when al Qaeda in Iraq shows video of a car bomb that wipes out innocent families? Why are these Youtube and blog denizens not clamoring to discover the identities and home addresses of Islamic fundamentalist thugs that film decapitations and torture?

Sadly, there is far less outrage for these human victims, and occasionally, there are even attempts to rationalize their inhuman brutality.

I'm sure that if they were asked about it today, every politician in Washington would tell you that they were "shocked and appalled" at the actions of the Marine in the video, and yet, most Congressional Democrats, including Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, would help set the stage for far worse in Iraq with a headlong, unconditional withdrawal that would make such depravity far more possible.

They seek to knowingly and willfully abandon Iraq to those would would do far worse than throw that nation's civilians down a ravine, because they think the war costs too much, or because it is unpopular with their constituents.

So many of the same people who have whipped up so much outrage over a dog are indifferent to greater depredations visited upon Iraqi women and children... and yet they claim that the Marine in the video is the savage among us.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:27 PM | Comments (12)

February 13, 2008

Live By the Bomb, Die By the Bomb

Imad Mughniyeh, the "original bin Laden" has been killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy:

Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah mastermind behind the kidnapping of Westerners in Beirut and many big terror attacks around the world in the 1980s and 1990s, was killed late last night in a car bomb explosion in Damascus.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, which occurred in the Syrian capital’s smart Kfar Soussa district, although Hezbollah blamed Israeli agents.

His death is a huge blow to the Iranian-backed militant group, given Mughniyeh's years of experience and organisational skills.

He was commander of Hezbollah's military wing, which he helped to build up into the formidable machine that fought the Israeli Army to a standstill in the war of summer 2006.

Israel's Mossad was quickly fingered by Hezbollah as being responsible for the assassination, which the Israeli's have officially denied, probably between toasts.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:32 AM | Comments (9)

February 08, 2008

Scotland Yard: Blast Killed Bhutto

In The Sun:

British officials are set to release a summary later today of a report on the probe into PPP Party chief Bhutto’s December 27 death.

Scotland Yard investigators said Bhutto died from a severe headwound as she was thrown by the force of the blast.

They also said that the attack was carried out by a single person who blew himself up after opening fire, not by two as authorities had originally reported.

The finding supports the Pakistani Government’s version of events.

But what about the bullet theory, seemingly supposed by video? As I noted December 31:

While the new film shows her hair and shawl moving, however, it is not conclusive.

Unlike the Zapruder-filmed assassination (YouTube) of John F. Kennedy, however, there is not the spray of flesh and bone one might have expected from a pistol blast at near contact range of approximately six feet.

The ballistics expert interviewed by Channel 4, Roger Gray, notes the concussive blast of the bullet hitting her hair and shawl and suggests that it indicates a bullet strike on the left side of Bhutto's head. There were not, however, any direct signs of an invasive impact to Bhutto's skull as seen with Kennedy, just the movement of her hair and shawl. One might think that a bullet hitting Bhutto on the left side of the skull, penetrating, and exiting the right side of her skull would have shown signs of exiting in the form of a spray of blood and bone, which was not evident in the film footage.

So while it is probable that Bhutto was struck by a bullet, it is not conclusive, and the government account of her hitting her head cannot be conclusively ruled out.

In short, Scotland Yard seems to bring us back to square one: the seemingly bizarre Pakistani claim that Bhutto was killed when the blast threw her against the right rear sunroof latch of the armored car in which she was riding. The claim, however, is the only one that seems to make logical sense if the assassin's bullet did in fact miss.

Ever helpful, the Bhutto family has refused a request to have an autopsy performed, and her political party instead issues forth absurd claims that she was killed with a laser.

It seems that the Bhutto family is far more concerned with supporting the story of her martyrdom by an assassin's bullet than seeking what may be a less glamorous martyrdom by the force of the suicide blast throwing her skull against the right rear sunroof latch. If they continue to refuse an autopsy, we can only surmise they are more interested in preserving mythology than divining the facts.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:17 AM | Comments (2)

February 06, 2008

Acts of Desperation

I wrote several days ago about how the use of mentally-disabled suicide bombers showed just how desperate al Qaeda in Iraq in was/is becoming, stating:

These attacks today serve to show that al Qaeda in Iraq is not quite finished, but then, that is something we already knew. What is does show us is just how desperate they are to retain relevance in a war that is going very badly for them.

Far from today's attacks being a sign of the "surge" in Iraq failing, the extraordinary lengths al Qaeda was forced to take to carry out these attacks show that the "surge" and the COIN doctrine implemented by General Petraeus are working precisely as we'd hoped.

A story published today showing that al Qaeda is now training children to carry out attacks merely confirms that theory.

Al Qaeda propaganda tapes released by the Pentagon reveal a possible new trend in the group's terror strategy in Iraq.

The tapes, obtained by FOXNews and later released to the media, are training videos showing black-masked Iraqi children between 6 and 14 being taught how to hold AK-47s, how to stop a car and carry out a kidnapping, how to break into a house and how to break into a courtyard and terrorize the individuals living there.

Footage aired for reporters showed an apparent training operation in which the boys are shown storming a house and holding guns to the heads of mock residents. Another tape showed a young boy wearing a suicide vest and posing with automatic weapons.

They also are seen being taught to use rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

"These were young boys all masked and hooded, all outfitted with weapons; adults were doing the training," said Rear Adm. Greg Smith, a spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq.

"Al Qaeda is clearly using children to exploit other children to get the interest of Jihad spread among teenagers far and wide. They use this footage on the Internet to encourage other young boys to join the jihad movement."

al Qaeda has been forced to a point where it is recruiting children to fight for it in Iraq, attempting to indoctrinate them at a young age to become acolytes of terror. While this is hardly unknown in terrorist cultures outside of Iraq—it is disturbingly common to see Palestinians indoctrinate their children this way—it has been very rare in Iraq, where al Qaeda has a desperate need for fighters now, not years from now. The children al Qaeda is training are trained for current operations.

This strongly suggests, like did the use of mentally disabled women last week, that al Qaeda is increasingly unable to find military-aged men in Iraq to carry out their attacks.

Last week at liberal blog Newshoggers, Libby called the use of mentally-disabled female suicide bombers as " a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that" before asking, "Perhaps Mr. Owens can educate me on how our troops are supposed to counter this new evil tactic? That would be helpful."

The quite obvious answer that she should have been able to grasp on her own was that we are successfully countering al Qaeda, using the exact COIN doctrine that she and her fellow liberals still refuse to recognize as working.

al Qaeda is forced to go to such lengths as using the mentally infirm and impressionable children as foot soldiers precisely because the COIN strategy being implemented by coalition military forces and Iraqi security forces and CLCs, is depriving the insurgents and terrorists of their base of support. Without popular support from significant sections of the population, insurgencies are doomed to fail.

While horrific and speaking a great deal about their depravity, these acts show that al Qaeda in Iraq and associated insurgent groups and criminal gangs are increasingly desperate. The proven COIN doctrine being implemented against these groups is increasingly more effective. Far from being able to brilliantly adapt, al Qaeda in Iraq has once again been proven itself to be incapable of long-term success, or even survival.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:57 AM | Comments (17)

February 01, 2008

How the Mighty Have Fallen

Two suicide attacks on pet markets in Baghdad today have left approximately 100 killed and twice as many wounded. Both attacks used women "with Down's syndrome" according the the Daily Mail and less specifically, they were described as "mentally disabled" according to CNN.

Both bombs appear to have been remote detonated. These women probably did not know they were carrying explosives at all, and it would probably be fair to include them among the victims.

The ever-objective, ever-unbiased New York Times saw fit to exclude the horrific detail of their alleged mental disabilities from their reporting of the day's massacre. It might upset their readers, and cause some confusion over who the real enemy in Iraq is (George Bush).

With tedious predictability, bloggers on the political left jumped with self-satisfaction at the opportunity to write about the attack, "proof" in their eyes, at last, that the "surge" of American forces into Iraq, which they so reviled, was a (blessed) failure.

Kevin Hayden wrote mockingly at the American Street:

How’s your surge, Mr. Oil Crony president?

It's not working so hot for Iraqis.

But Exxon seems to think it's peachy. I wonder if they plan to send flowers and a thank you note to the families of the 3943 US troops who died to make Exxon richer than 2/3rds of the planet's countries.

How many troops per gallon does your car get?

His deep and abiding concern for the men, women, and children killed in the attack, and those injured, must have been saved for a later post.

At Newshoggers, Libby was quick to jump to the occasion to declare the war lost:

I've never understood how people were lulled into thinking the surge really succeeded in establishing security in Iraq. It seemed rather apparent, even to my under-schooled eyes, that the surge was a gimmick. It reminded me of those bait and switch promotions that unscrupulous retailers used to engage in. The surge raised the violence to greater levels and then lowered the numbers with artificial manipulatons [sic] to a level that had been judged unacceptable when the surge began. But all that too many Americans seemed to notice was that the levels dropped. For some reson[sic], the relative metrics just didn't register.

The surge, you see (like spell-check) is a gimmick in Libby's eyes, and the very real drop in attacks and casualties around Iraq because of the application of COIN doctrine is just the result of artificial "manipulatons," whatever they may be.

Both, of course, miss the larger picture in their desire, their need to prove their worldview right. But she is right in one regard... she is "under-schooled" in how this war is being fought, and why it is being won.

These attacks today are not the first time al Qaeda in Iraq has stooped to using female suicide bombers. They have been used several times, including twice earlier this month in Diyala.

This tells us several things.

First, it tells us that al Qaeda in Iraq recognizes that attempts to use male suicide bombers and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), their preferred method of suicide attacks for those seeking martyrdom, are no longer effective. These attacks fail because the combination of coalition military forces, Iraqi security forces, and neighborhood militias, known as "concerned local citizens" (CLCs) creating a security system that increasingly works, and makes it very unlikely that these preferred attacks will succeed. There is also some speculation that the influx of would-be foreign suicide bombers into Iraq is drying up.

Today's attacks also tell us that al Qaeda in Iraq is getting very desperate in seeking the high-casualty attacks that they so value. They were forced to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel, and use not only women (which they'd prefer to subjugate), but mentally disabled women at that, suggesting that finding willing volunteers is becoming ever more difficult.

These attacks today serve to show that al Qaeda in Iraq is not quite finished, but then, that is something we already knew. What is does show us is just how desperate they are to retain relevance in a war that is going very badly for them.

Far from today's attacks being a sign of the "surge" in Iraq failing, the extraordinary lengths al Qaeda was forced to take to carry out these attacks show that the "surge" and the COIN doctrine implemented by General Petraeus are working precisely as we'd hoped.

Update: The NY Times has updated the original article to now include a contribution from Mudhafer al-Husaini. It now includes commentary about the mental disability of the suicide bombers... buried 15 paragraphs into the now much longer story.

IHT still has up an original version of this story as it ran earlier, which I've copied into the comments as well.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:15 PM | Comments (80)

January 31, 2008

Predator: 12 13, Al Qaeda: 0

I wrote earlier this week about militants killed in a missile strike in Pakistan. At the time, I speculated that they were going after "high-value targets" (HVTs), and speculated that the attack may have been a U.S. Predator drone strike like the one that targeted al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2006.

According to Michelle Malkin, It looks like they may have targeting someone else, as noted in this Reuters article:

A leading al Qaeda member in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, has been killed, a Web site often used by the group and other Islamists said on Thursday.

A banner on the Ekhlaas.org site said Libi had fallen as a martyr, without giving further details.

It was not immediately clear if Libi's death was linked to a suspected U.S. missile strike that killed up to 13 foreign militants in Pakistan's North Waziristan region this week.

The attack had targeted second or third tier al Qaeda leaders, according to residents in the tribal area.

Tribesmen in the area had said a deputy of Libi, a senior al Qaeda leader, had been staying there and was among the dead, according to an intelligence official.

It remains to be seen if any other high-ranking al Qaeda figures were among the 12 killed, and whether or not it was, in fact, a U.S. drone operating well inside Pakistan. An earlier AP report seems to suggest that possibility:

A resident said an armed drone may have carried out the strike.

"We could see a small, white plane flying over the village for the past several days," villager Dildar Khan said.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said he had no information about any missile strike.

The government often uses airstrikes to attack militants in areas that its ground forces and artillery cannot reach, but some of the aerial attacks near the border in recent years are believed to have been launched by missile-armed U.S. drones flying from Afghanistan.

Authorities in both the U.S. and Afghanistan have denied knowledge of such operations.

Sure they do. It doesn't make the terrorists any less dead.

More from Reuters, which also leans towards a predator strike in Pakistan:

An intelligence official, however, told Reuters on Thursday that based on information gleaned from tribal contacts there were seven Arabs and six Central Asians killed.

He said the attack was believed to have been carried out by a pilotless U.S. Predator aircraft flown across the nearby border with Afghanistan.

"The missile appeared to have been fired by a drone," the intelligence official said.

The Pakistani authorities have not confirmed the attack, and the Pentagon has denied taking any action, but the Defense Department does not speak for the Central Intelligence Agency, which operates Predators that the tribesmen say carried out the attack late on Monday.

Villagers saw two drones flying over the area before the attack. They didn't see the missile being fired but one heard a plane's engine before the explosion.

The same report states that in addition to Abu Laith al Libi, Obaidah al Masri may have been another target of the attack. al Masri was reportedly the leader of the 2006 UK-based plot to bomb transatlantic airliners.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:02 PM | Comments (0)

Silence of the Media Lambs

A current employee of the Department of Homeland Security, who spoke to Pajamas Media on the condition of anonymity, had this to say: "It is mind-boggling. I've sent personal emails to my contacts at ABC, at CBS, at the New York Times, and the Washington Times. No one is even responding to my emails. They call me back about other things, but as far as Sibel [Edmonds] is concerned, anything touching on that subject gets overlooked, gets ignored."

"Why?" this reporter asked.

"Reporters are terrified of the State Secrets Privilege and being subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. No one wants to wind up like Judy Miller — in jail."

What are they covering up? If Annie Jacobsen is correct, nuclear treason at the State Department.

Why?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:12 PM | Comments (6)

January 29, 2008

Targeting Zawahiri?

Interesting...

Twelve suspected militants died in a missile strike on a home in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday, officials said.

The attack occurred after midnight in Khushali Torikhel, a village in North Waziristan, a tribal region bordering Afghanistan, an intelligence and a government official in the region said.

There was no immediate official confirmation of the attack. The two officials who spoke did so on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make media comments.

Pakistan has been trying to tamp down on militancy in its border regions, where elements of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are believed to operate.

Technically, the Pakistani military has the capability to launch guided missiles from both ground platforms (given the terrain and effective range, unlikely) and from aircraft (more likely), but considering the proximity to the Afghan border and the fact that the strike happened at nighttime, I would hardly be surprised to find out that a U.S. Predator armed with Hellfire missiles made the strike. If that was the case, I would not be surprised to see that leaked out over coming days.

Of course, if this was a U.S. strike, the next logical question is to ask if they were after any high value targets (HVTs) in particular.

In January of 2006, a Predator fired missiles into a compound on the Pakistan border in hopes of taking out al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy. The 2006 strike missed Zawahiri.

Could we have been more fortunate this time?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | Comments (3)

January 25, 2008

"The Final Battle"

Iraqi military forces are closing in on the northern Iraqi city of Mosul following a massive HBIED (home or structural improvised explosive device) killed 40 and wounded 220 on Wednesday, and a smaller blast by a suicide bomber dressed as a policeman killed the Nineveh province police director and tour others as they inspected the blast site.

"We have set up an operations room in Nineveh to complete the final battle with al Qaeda along with guerrillas and members of the previous regime,"militants the government says remain loyal to former leader Saddam Hussein.

"Today our forces started moving to Mosul. What we are planning in Nineveh will be decisive," he said during a ceremony for victims of violence in the holy Shi'ite southern city of Kerbala, broadcast on state television.

Maliki gave no details of the number of Iraqi troops involved or the scale of the operation. Defence Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari did not have details but said it had been launched at Maliki's request.

"Security is very weak there and the security forces need to be reinforced," Askari said.

As noted above in the article by Reuters' Aws Qusay, there have not been any details provided about the composition of the Iraqi forces or their numbers, but what Maliki and Askari state seems to indicate that the offensive may be entirely Iraq in nature, a claim I'm attempting to verify with U.S. military public affairs in Iraq.

Iraqi forces are "in the lead" in 9 of 18 Iraqi provinces with other province hand-overs expected in 2008, and during Ashura, Iraqi security forces led security operations that successfully protected over 2 million pilgrims. But outside of Iraq, "taking the lead" for security in 9 provinces and securing Ashura events simply isn't the kind of security success easily grasped by either journalists or the public at large.

If—and it is an "if"—they do indeed engage in a large urban clearing operation carried out exclusively by Iraqi forces, however, it would seem to be a "Virginia Slims" moment that the American public can grasp on to as a a tangible success.

For an Iraqi military that has been disparaged for so long, it would be nice to say, "You've come a long way, baby."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:13 AM | Comments (5)

January 24, 2008

Saddam Lied, People Died

Don't expect this to penetrate to consciousness of those who bought the CPI report unapologetically and uncritically, they won't let George Bush off the hook, no matter the reality:

Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture...

..."He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.

Once the invasion was certain, says Piro, Saddam asked his generals if they could hold the invaders for two weeks. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," Piro tells Pelley. But Piro isn't convinced that the insurgency was Saddam's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," says Piro.

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

It seems like The Center for Public Integrity and The Fund for Independence in Journalism have some explaining to do...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:35 PM | Comments (86)

January 23, 2008

Suicide Attacks Thwarted in Spain

Must be those pesky Methodists:

The Spanish judge overseeing the arraignment of 10 terrorism suspects said Wednesday that they had "planned to carry out a series of suicide attacks" last weekend on public transportation in Barcelona.

In a sequence of six-page rulings, one for each of the 10 suspects he ordered to be held in jail after their arraignments.

"Judge Ismael Moreno wrote that the suspects "had achieved human operational capacity and were very close to achieving full technical capacity with explosives, with the aim of using the those explosives for a jihadi terrorist attack, and it can be deduced that the members of the terrorist cell now broken up planned to carry out a series of suicide attacks last weekend, January 18 to 20, against public transport in the city of Barcelona."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:47 PM | Comments (3)

January 21, 2008

Marine Hero's Widow Scammed, But Not Forgotten

shumneyfam1
1st Lt. Dustin Shumney with Conner, Jordan, Mallory, and Julie Shumney.

[text and images via patdollard.com.]

1st Lt. Dustin Shumney was a devout Catholic, dedicated officer, family man, and Iraq War hero.

His widow Julie, and their three children Jordan, 15; Mallory, 11; Conner, 6 were awarded the Bronze Star with the Combat ‘V’ device on August 4, 2005 as a result of his heroic actions in Fallujah, Iraq while serving as the commander of 2nd platoon, Charlie Company, Battalion Landing Team for Hawaii based 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force.

He led his men fearlessly into Fallujah in November of 2004. Shumney’s confidence, proficiency and warfighting spirit made a positive impact on his platoon’s ability to fight.

And fight they did. Few men have ever exercised the type of bravery exhibited by Shumney and his men. From throwing live enemy grenades that landed at his feet back at the enemy, to leading his men through dangerous minefields, to clearing houses filled with suicidal insurgents, all the while under sporadic mortar, RPG, and small arms fire.

Articles have been written. Heroes have been recognized. Medals have been awarded.

Many posthumously.

Lt. Shumney died on Jan. 26, 2005, when the CH-53E Sea Stallion helicopter he and his men were using for transport crashed due to a sandstorm about 200 miles from Baghdad near Ar Rutbah, Iraq killing all on board. Approximately 30 Marines and one sailor perished in the crash making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. troops since the initial invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

On that day, Julie Shumney became a widow, and the three children she and Dustin had lovingly brought into the world, Jordan, Mallory, and Conner, became fatherless.

One of the most noble things a person can do, is to help widows and orphans during their “time of trouble.“

The harshness of the reality that her soulmate would never walk through their front door again and take her in his arms, the emptiness that Daddy would never again tuck them into their beds, kiss them goodnight and chase away the boogeymen; the knowledge that he would never be there to lead, guide, play with, and love their children again, is a time of trouble no decent person would ever wish upon any other.

In times like those, friends and family should come together, band around the widow and the fatherless, and give them aid and comfort.

This is the tale of two men who preyed upon this widow and her fatherless children, in their time of trouble, and bilked them out of $57,000.

Arguably, one of the best ways a person can work through grief is to give oneself to a charitable cause. This is what Julie Shumney did. She held a Bible study at her house with people from her church, and through the course of those weekly meetings she came up with the idea to raise money to give to various Christian outreach programs around the country.

More specifically, a program that would give money to Iraq War widows and orphans. This was especially dear to her. She wanted to help those who would go through what she had been going through.

This is where Julie Shumney’s heart is, to help those truly in need.

“I just was wanting to give back,” Julie said.

Enter Jeff, an evangelist from her church, who also led the weekly Bible study in Julie’s house, he seemed like a nice enough guy. And when the idea to help Iraq War widows and orphans came about, Jeff told Julie about a friend of his named Ken.

Jeff explained that Ken had had some success in an eBay business that revolved around buying truckloads of returned electronics merchandise from national chain stores like Circuit City and Wal-Mart at a greatly reduced price. They go through the items, salvaging what they can and putting them up for sale on eBay.

According to Jeff and Ken, their first investor, a man named Hencer, had fronted them the money needed to get that business going, and Hencer claimed he had received his initial investment back with no problem.

What could go wrong? The nice evangelist guy has a friend with a tried and true method that could help them raise lots of money to give to Iraq War widows and orphans. Her idea was that they would recoup the initial investment and give the profits to the widows and orphans charity, then take that initial investment and buy another truckload of reduced electronics, etc etc…and continue the cycle of charitable giving.

Sounded like a good plan for a good cause.

They drew up a contract. Julie gave them a Cashier’s Check for $40,000 with the stipulation that $5,000 be used to help “start up” the business, and that nobody made any profit off of the venture, that the profits would go to the charities. Contract signed, check handed over, Julie felt good. She felt that she might be able to help make a difference in the lives of those who would be going through one of the worst times of their lives.

Both Jeff and Kenneth had said that the project would be a side thing for them, that they would be volunteering their time with the project in the spirit of giving, and helping the Iraq war widows and orphans.

But soon afterward, things started to go bad. The contract they had signed had mysteriously disappeared. Whenever Julie would call Ken or Jeff to check on how things were going, she would get conflicting stories.

Things weren’t adding up.

But Julie, being a good Christian, believed that because they were also Christians, brothers in the faith, she should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Then one day, Jeff the evangelist came to Julie in tears. He said he was unable to live with himself knowing what he knew and that he was losing sleep, and his conscience was eating away at him.

He told her that Ken had been pocketing the money. That Ken had bought a car for his wife with it, that he had been making his own house payments with it, that he had been simply spending it as if it were his own money. Jeff went on to tell Julie that he himself had been unfaithful with the funds, paying for an expensive school for his own son, as well as numerous other personal bills.

Julie said “Well, let’s go get my electronics from your garage then. They belong to me.”

Jeff agreed. But Jeff said that Ken was a dangerous person with a criminal background. That there was no telling what he would do if he was confronted with his wrongdoing. So they decided initially, to not tell Ken that Jeff had informed Julie of the deception. Instead they took the merchandise, rented a warehouse, and moved it there. Then, Jeff told Ken that he was no longer part of the project.

Jeff then told Julie they needed to buy another smaller truckload of electronics to try and help recoup her losses, and Julie reluctantly agreed on the condition that she send the money directly to the company that was selling the truckload of electronics, and she did that.

Jeff brought in a man named Brandon, who was supposedly an honest guy, to help.

Soon after they started operating, Jeff said that Paypal kept shutting them down and they didn’t know why. Jeff gave Julie some excuse about eBay, which she found hard to believe. Julie knew it was time to just shut it down. Brandon came to her and told her that things with Jeff were “not as they seemed.”

Julie ended recouping only $7,000 of her $57,000 investment. Ken had threatened her if she tried to come after him for her money back. Apparently these two guys run some ministry called John G. Lake.org.

I talked to Julie on the phone this afternoon. Her income, which was supposed to be from an annuity is gone because she had to liquidate the annuity. She is having a hard time making ends meet.

She wants to pursue the matter legally, but that also takes money that she doesn’t have.

An Iraq War Hero’s widow and fatherless children need your help.


Click above to donate directly to Julie Shumney’s Paypal account.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:56 AM | Comments (6)

January 14, 2008

Prayers for "Big Country"

Long-time CY commenter William "Big Country" Coughlin is recovering in the United States from wounds sustained in the Middle East theater of operations (most likely Iraq, but I cannot yet confirm that detail).

The wounds are not life-threatening but have him confined to a wheelchair since late December. He hopes to make a full recovery and return to duty in Iraq providing logistical support within five weeks.

If you will, say a prayer for him and other contractors killed or wounded in the line of duty while supporting our military.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:02 AM | Comments (3)

January 10, 2008

Liberal Math

I don't often go after individual bloggers, but statements made yesterday by "dday" at Hullabaloo warrant direct comment.

Discussing a new report that places the number of Iraqi's killed since the start of the war until June of 2006 at roughly 151,000, "dday" wrote:

NPR was trying to spin this as somehow a LOW number of Iraqi civilian casualties in the last three and a half years, because it comes in lower than the Lancet study. But it remains 150,000 human lives, dead, senselessly, for an unnecessary war of choice. And that only goes up to June 2006, and the authors of the study admitted they were unable to reach certain areas that were "too violent."

Not to mention the 3,900-plus soldiers, including 9 in the last two days. And the numbers of wounded are incalculable.

All to remove a dictator who wasn't nearly as efficient at killing Iraqis.

Saddam Hussein "wasn't nearly as efficient at killing Iraqis"? Only in his community-based reality.

Between 70-125 Iraqi civilians were killed per day during Saddam Hussein's reign.

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

That gives us a range of 600,000-1,000,000 civilians killed during Saddam's stewardship, with a median average of 97.5 Iraqi civilians killed per day during his reign, or 780,000. Over 24 years, that is a median average of 32,500 Iraqi civilians per year...

But this isn't a true "apples to apples" comparison, is it?

This does not include military deaths that occurred during Saddam's "unnecessary war of choice" with Iran from 1980-88, which which accounts for roughly one million more lives on both sides, nor casualties sustained as a result of his other "unnecessary war of choice" that resulted from his invasion of Kuwait, where an estimated 100,000+ died during the first Gulf War in 1990-91.

Combining the number of civilians killed by Saddam and number of soldiers killed on all sides during his two "unnecessary wars of choice," and we find a median estimate of 1.88 million killed during his 24-year reign, or 235 people a day.

The Iraq War started on March 20, 2003, and this study ran through June of 2006. In that time, 151,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, or 126.04 per day.

Add in 10,000 estimated terrorist/insurgent/militia dead and roughly 2762 through that time period Coalition military deaths, and you arrive at a rough total of 163762 total violent deaths, or 136.7 total violent deaths per day through June 2006.

235 violent deaths per day over Saddam's reign including his wars.

137 violent deaths per day in Iraq over the first three years of the present war.

You do the math, and try to paint Saddam's continued reign as a preferable state of affairs.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:04 AM | Comments (24)

Air Strikes Hit 40 Targets in Iraqi Offensive

From 2nd BCT, 3rd Inf. Div. PAO, via email press release:

More than 40 targets were hit Jan. 10 after precision air strikes destroyed reported al-Qaeda safe havens in Arab Jabour. Thirty-eight bombs were dropped within the first 10 minutes, with a total tonnage of 40,000 pounds.

The precision air strikes supported Operation Phantom Phoenix, the overarching operation that includes Operation Marne Thunderbolt.

[snip]

Two B-1 Bombers and four F-16 fighter jets, directed bombs at three large target areas. Each bomber made two passes and the F-16s followed to complete the set.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:24 AM | Comments (1)

January 07, 2008

I Wouldn't Get Too Excited...

...over news that Osma Bin Laden's security coordinator was captured in Lahore, Pakistan.

Not because it couldn't happen, but because the source is Pakistan's The Nation, the same news organization that reported the claim last week that Benazir Bhutto was killed by a laser.

As a result, I'd consider their credibility just a wee bit suspect.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:13 PM | Comments (0)

December 31, 2007

Impact?

Channel 4 has new video of the Benazir Bhutto assassination that seems to indicate that the former Prime Minister was indeed hit by the assassin's bullet before she fell back into the car (click Watch this report).

The video, shot from behind Bhutto's vehicle and to the right, shows Bhutto's hair and shawl rise as the pistol discharges for the second time. She drops into the vehicle prior to the suicide bomber detonating. There is nothing in this video to indicate that the first and third shots had any effect.

While the new film shows her hair and shawl moving, however, it is not conclusive.

Unlike the Zapruder-filmed assassination (YouTube) of John F. Kennedy, however, there is not the spray of flesh and bone one might have expected from a pistol blast at near contact range of approximately six feet.

The ballistics expert interviewed by Channel 4, Roger Gray, notes the concussive blast of the bullet hitting her hair and shawl and suggests that it indicates a bullet strike on the left side of Bhutto's head. There were not, however, any direct signs of an invasive impact to Bhutto's skull as seen with Kennedy, just the movement of her hair and shawl. One might think that a bullet hitting Bhutto on the left side of the skull, penetrating, and exiting the right side of her skull would have shown signs of exiting in the form of a spray of blood and bone, which was not evident in the film footage.

So while it is probable that Bhutto was struck by a bullet, it is not conclusive, and the government account of her hitting her head cannot be conclusively ruled out.

Channel 4 was slightly deceptive in their account when they show a sunroof latch from her vehicle and state that there was no sign of blood, implying that the Pakistani government was lying. The government may very well be lying, but the latch they show does not support this; there were two on each side, and Channel 4 is clearly showing the right front latch, while it is the right rear latch that has blood on it and that Bhutto is said to have hit her head on.

full

It appears everyone is trying to spin the story of Bhutto's assassination for their own advantage, including the media.

Update: Image added.

It is worth noting that if a bullet struck Bhutto a glancing blow and ricocheted away without fully penetrating her skull, that it could possibly leave a wound that would not necessarily look like that of a typical gunshot wound, and instead look something like a blunt force trauma.

If this is the case—and without an autopsy, there are no definitive answers—then the Pakistani government, seeing blood on the rear latch and not seeing evidence of a clear bullet hole, may have incorrectly surmised the cause of death as an impact with the rear sunroof latch as she went down. This is incompetence, but not necessarily a conspiracy to deprive Bhutto of her martyrdom.

In any event, it does not excuse Channel 4 from showing the front sunroof latch and insinuating that there was no blood on any latch, when they clearly took a closeup of the front right latch for their closely-cropped still photo, still in the exact position as shown in the photo above.

Update: AllahPundit's analysis here.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:06 AM | Comments (7)

December 27, 2007

Bhutto Assassinated

Pakistan Bhutto Blast
A supporter of Pakistan former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto mourns deaths of his colleagues after a suicide attack in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Thursday, Dec. 27, 2007. Bhutto died Thursday from her injuries sustained in the attack, a party aide said. At least 20 others were killed in the attack.
(AP Photo/B.K.Bangash)

Former Pakistani Prime Minster and Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan today, following a campaign rally at Liaqat Bagh park preceding elections scheduled for January 8.

Members of Bhutto's political party confirmed that Bhutto died in surgery at Rawalpindi General Hospital at 6:16 PM from gunshot wounds to her chest and neck.

At least five shots were fired at Bhutto as she entered her vehicle, and a gunman equipped with a suicide vest blew himself up 50 yards from her vehicle after the shots were fired.

Early reports indicate that at least 20 supporters and police were killed in the blast.

Bhutto led the opposition against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack.

Developing news and blog coverage of the assassination is being updated at Pajamas Media.

Update: Rioting is expected across Pakistan as a result of Bhutto's death.

Bhutto had been the target of previous assassination attempts from Islamic extremists, and it would be reasonable to assume that they were behind today's attack as well. Some have been quick to also point a finger at jihadi-friendly elements of the Pakistani intelligence community, which seems a reasonable assumption, but at this time it is simply too early to know.

What is certain is that Bhutto's death will throw Pakistani into turmoil, and President Pervez Musharraf now faces the greatest crisis of his Presidency. The January 8 elections now seem in doubt, and missteps by Musharraf could plunge the nuclear-armed country into a possible civil war.

If Musharraf is able to keep the situation from deteriorating to that point, and Islamists are found to be responsible for Bhutto's assassination, he may finally be forced to face the Taliban and al Qaeda-aligned militants in the border regions that terrorists have used as a staging area and base camp since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, forces he has largely tried to appease or ignore in the past.

Following Bhutto's assassination, it would not be very surprising to see Musharraf finally authorize U.S. forces to make cross border raids into the tribal areas in a push to wipe out known Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds, though this point, it is far too early to tell how the former general and current President will react.

Update: Via Hot Air, it seems al Qaeda is taking responsibility for the attack. This may be Musharraf's best chance to clean out the Taliban and al Qaeda with the support of the Pakistani people. Let's hope his does his nation a favor and does just that.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (4)

December 26, 2007

If At First You Don't Succeed...

Russia is selling a new air defense system to our friends in Tehran:

The new S-300 air defense system signals growing miitary [sic] cooperation between Moscow and Tehran, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said Wednesday.

"The S-300 air defense system will be delivered to Iran on the basis of a contract signed with Russia in the past," state television quoted Najjar as saying.

Najjar didn't say when or how many of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense systems would be shipped to Iran.

Earlier this year, Russia delivered 29 Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran under a $700 million contract signed in December 2005.

Russian officials wouldn't comment on the Iranian statement, but the Interfax news agency quoted an unidentified source in the Russian military-industrial complex as saying that a contract for the missiles delivery had been signed several years ago and envisaged the delivery of several dozen S-300 missile systems.

The S-300 is much more powerful and versatile weapon than the Tor-M1 missile systems supplied earlier, which were capable of hitting airborne targets flying at up to 20,000 feet.

The S-300 is capable of shooting down aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missile warheads at ranges of up to 95 miles and at altitudes of up to 90,000 feet. Russian military officials boast that it excels the U.S.-built Patriot missiles currently being deployed in Israel.

The announcement comes three months after Israeli strike fighters bombed what some claimed was a nuclear weapons assembly plant in another Soviet client state, Syria.

The Aviation Week blog Ares suggests that the Israelis were able to penetrate the Syrian's Russian-made air defense system with non-steathy F15 and F16 strike fighters by using an airborne network attack system. The US-developed system, called "Suter," may have taken over the state-of-the-art Syrian air defense network, rendering it effectively blind.

While the capabilities of both "Suter" and the Russian air defense systems are classified, there is little reason to believe that the S-300 system is any less prone to being taken over by the airborne attack system than the TOR-1 short-range system already in use by both Syria and Iran.

If this is the case, Iran my be spending millions on an anti-aircraft system that may never see the bombers that kill it.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:06 PM | Comments (1)

December 13, 2007

Another Fake Massacre

This is CNN:

Iraqi soldiers have found a mass grave of mutilated bodies in a restive region north of Baghdad, a local security official told CNN Thursday.

...

Iraqi soldiers said 12 of the bodies found north of Baghdad were beheaded and four others were mutilated. The corpses, all male, were discovered Wednesday near Muqdadiya in Diyala province north of the capital, the official, from Diyala province, said on Thursday.

He said police believe al Qaeda in Iraq left behind the mass grave.

Uh, no.

From Task For Iron's PAO via email:

This appears to false reporting. We currently have no information to confirm this. Neither the Brigade on the ground, or out teams that work with the IA or IPs can confirm this.

This is at least the fifth "massacre of civilians story by al Qaeda" attributed to anonymous police, civilian, or military sources by incurious reporters this year.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:01 PM | Comments (14)

November 28, 2007

A "Tepid" Riot

Terribly Enraged People of Indeterminate Descent (Tepids) have raged through France for the third night now.

Sustaining in excess of more than 80 injuries thus far, including more than 30 officers shot, French police are probably wishing they were somewhere relatively safer right now. Like Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, Tikrit...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:17 AM | Comments (16)

November 20, 2007

AP's Grandstanding on the Hussein Case

Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was arrested in a terrorist sweep in September of 2006 with Hamid Hamad Motib, a known member of al Qaeda, and another insurgent. Yesterday, it was announced that Hussein will be brought before an investigative magistrate in the Iraqi legal system, and the magistrate will determine whether or not there are grounds to try Hussein under Iraqi law.

AP Associate General Counsel Dave Tomlin made quite a bit of noise in response:

An AP attorney on Monday strongly protested the decision, calling the U.S. military plans a "sham of due process." The journalist, Bilal Hussein, has already been imprisoned without charges for more than 19 months.

And from AP boss Tom Curley:

"While we are hopeful that there could be some resolution to Bilal Hussein's long detention, we have grave concerns that his rights under the law continue to be ignored and even abused," said AP President and CEO Tom Curley.

"The steps the U.S. military is now taking continue to deny Bilal his right to due process and, in turn, may deny him a chance at a fair trial. The treatment of Bilal represents a miscarriage of the very justice and rule of law that the United States is claiming to help Iraq achieve. At this point, we believe the correct recourse is the immediate release of Bilal," Curley added.

These Associated Press officers are taking the infuriating course of trying to spin this case in terms of American law, and not Iraqi law.

As an American military source in Iraq said moments ago:

In the Iraqi system, there is an investigative judge who does the initial work and you can think of it closer terms to a grand jury. Those are not open to the public and that is where indictments are made.

Some of the information is currently classified and as such won't be made public per se, but will be provided at trial, but again, not to the public. Just as in a military court-martial, they are open to the public, but if classified information is to be discussed, it is then closed to the public for that portion. Just like testimony in Congress...there are open and closed sessions.

The biggest issue is the attempts to equate it to our system when it should not be.

Curley and Tomlin, respectively the AP President/CEO and Associate General Counsel, are grandstanding as they try to spin this pending case in the court of American public opinion.

Hussein's actual guilt or innocence as a potential terrorist seems to be to them a secondary concern.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:20 AM | Comments (8)

Federal Grand Jury Investigating Blackwater Shooting?

Seems like it:

A federal grand jury is said to be investigating the role of Blackwater Worldwide security guards in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.

The Blackwater guards involved in the September 16 shooting at Nisoor Square in west Baghdad initially were given limited immunity from prosecution by State Department investigators in exchange for their statements about what happened. One senior FBI official close to the investigation told The Associated Press last week that he was aware of evidence that could indicate 14 of the shootings were unjustified.

By far, the most damning part of the story is this:

ABC said it had obtained statements given to State Department diplomatic security agents. According to the statements, only five guards acknowledged firing their weapons in the incident. Twelve other guards witnessed the events but did not fire, according to the statements.

As it stands, only five of 17 discharged their weapons. If the convoy was actually under fire as some have maintained (which the evidence does not seem to support), I would have expected a much higher percentage of the guards to have expended rounds.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:26 AM | Comments (47)

November 19, 2007

Bringing Out the Dead

Recent stories of a mass grave turning up in the Doura district of Baghdad very well may be "fake but accurate," according to sources in Iraq, including Michael Yon.

The bodies, found inside unfinished homes, appear to be at roughly seven months deceased—some little more than bones—and sources state that it appears that the bodies were only recently dumped there.

I'm seeking more information through the PAO system, but in the meantime, I'm unsure just what the dumping of these bodies means.

Are the various anti-Iraqi forces (AQI and the ISI for the Sunnis, or Shia militias) fearing that holding on to these bodies might lead to them get caught? Or were they desperately trying to create a media spectacle, and have found themselves reduced to this level?

I find it very hard to believe that anti-Iraqi forces are in such disarray at this point that they are reduced to a Pythonesque "Bring out your dead!" stunt to get media attention, but the thought that they felt the need to dump these bodies certainly seem to mean that they are feeling the pressure of recently coalition advances.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:19 AM | Comments (2)

The Pajamas Media War on Terror Conversation with Fred Thompson

The Pajamas Media War on Terror Conversation with Fred Thompson that Roger Simon and I did last week is online, and I hope that the questions we asked Senator Thompson will give you a better idea of his positions and his passions than do the short, 15-second sound bites candidates are usually allowed.

I don't want to lead anyone—these War on Terror conversations are about informing, not guiding—but I did want to comment on the some of the "conventional wisdom" regarding Senator Thompson, that claims his campaign lacks energy and drive, and that it is lazy.

I was able to watch the first part of the Senator's speech before leaving to get ready for our interview, and I found him to be a passionate and engaging speaker. But don't take my word for it. Watch the conversation, and decide for yourself.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:23 AM | Comments (6)

November 17, 2007

On Coming Home

What you need to know, first and last, is that so-called PTSD is not an illness. It is a normal condition for people who have been through what you have been through. The instinct to kill and war is native to humanity. It is very deeply rooted in me, as it is in you. We have rules and customs to restrain it, so that sometimes we may have peace. What you are experiencing is not an illness, but the awareness of what human nature is like deep down. It is the awareness of what life is like without the walls that protect civilization.

You might need this, or know someone who might need this. PTS and PTSD affect not only those in the military and civilian first responders, but your friends, neighbors, and family members, for a multitude of reasons.

Read it all.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:09 PM | Comments (4)

November 16, 2007

Back to Church

stjohns3
U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Ben Washburn

Shortly over a week ago, Michael Yon shot an iconic photo of a group of Muslim and Christian Iraqis placing a cross back atop St. John's Chruch in Baghdad's Doura neighborhood, in Thanks and Praise.

Yesterday, American soldiers and Iraqi citizens attended the first service in St. John's since May 5. The church had been bombed and burned in 2004.

Update: I should have known he'd be there, too.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:07 AM | Comments (10)

November 07, 2007

Thanks and Praise

Thanks and Praise-vers1

Mike Yon:

I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John's Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from "Chosen" Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John's, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.


The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. "Thank you, thank you," the people were saying. One man said, "Thank you for peace." Another man, a Muslim, said "All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother." The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

Comparisons to Rosenthal's iconic Iwo Jima photo are both obvious and immediate. Rand Simberg thinks Yon should win a Pulitzer for this photo. Frankly, that honor should have come two years ago. Instead, they gave it to a gaggle of Associated Press photographers, one of which, Bilal Hussein, was later arrested with a known al Qaeda terrorist and remains in jail.

No, this photo is not as iconic as the Rosenthal photo, nor Yon's 2005 photo of Major Mark Bieger carrying a mortally wounded Iraqi child after an al Qaeda car bomb attack.

The symbolism of an ending sectarian conflict, and possibly the dawning of an Iraq that is appearing more and more like it is verging upon moving into a post-war period, however, is every bit as great.

Update: Chris Muir captures the moment at Day-by-Day.

11/08 Update: Major Kirk Leudeke, Public Affairs Officer for
4th IBCT, 1st ID, states that 2-12 IN is one of the units attached to his brigade, and that they've been in combat for about a year.

He said that St. John's Church had been bombed and burned back in 2004, but that since that time, the church's inner sanctuary has been restored, and putting the cross back on the building was the "crowning touch."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:24 PM | Comments (26)

October 31, 2007

Beating the Smallest Enemies

Jay Price of McClatchy Newspapers put up an interesting post yesterday afternoon that I happened to catch off of Memeorandum.com, which reminds us that traditionally, it isn't the dramatic wounds of battle that cause most military casualties, but disease and non-combat injuries, and that the supermajority of medical evacuations of military personnel from Iraq are not the result of enemy fire.

Disease, however, too is another native insurgency in which our military seems to have gained the upper hand:

An example of that success is the U.S. fight against leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease spread by sandflies that causes festering wounds and can attack the organs.

When the British army came to Iraq in the 1930s, leishmaniasis incapacitated up to 30 percent of the troops, said Lt. Col. Ray Dunton , a trained entomologist who's in Iraq serving as chief of preventive medicine for the 62nd Medical Brigade.

In 2004, hundreds of U.S. soldiers also were infected. Preventive medicine teams went into action, spraying insecticide and urging troops to use insect repellant. Infestations dropped from an average of 140 a month to nearly zero. Only 10 people have been diagnosed with leishmaniasis this year.

Informed of the situation, Harry Reid's staff is scrambling to issue a statement declaring the war against battlefield illnesses "lost."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:30 AM | Comments (11)

October 19, 2007

On Victory in Iraq

Thoughts from Greyhawk on the Iraq War, from 100 feet over Baghdad:

...I've been writing about Iraq here for four years now - in and out of country. I've been here during many of the most violent months of the war; from the second battle for Fallujah through the January, 2005 elections, and from the launch of the surge to the present - and I'm not homebound yet. In all that time progress has been achingly slow, and back steps have been mixed with forward - but never the majority. Throughout it all - until now - I've never declared victory, seen "light at the end of the tunnel", or even claimed to have "turned a corner" - you can take your bumper sticker slogans and shove 'em. Over here a tenacious and bloodthirsty enemy has fought a well-designed and multi-faceted campaign against us, perhaps secure in the knowledge that blame for every child they killed or each holy place they defiled would be shifted to us even as they washed the blood from their hands. Their efforts gained support from many quarters (not all of which were anticipated in preparation for or included in response to their actions) and condemnation from few. But the ranks of their opponents - at least here in Iraq - are large and still growing, and theirs are neither. The battles are diminishing but ongoing, losses will be suffered, and blood will still be shed. Still more of their supporters may redouble their efforts. But in short, while I recognize this will provoke immeasurable rage from those who feel we've lost, and consternation among those who know we've won but lack the fortitude to make the declaration at this point in time, I'll say it again: we've won the war in Iraq.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:45 PM | Comments (11)

October 18, 2007

Iraqi Geezer: 1 Suicide Bomber: 0

Doing the jobs that Americans won't do...

A 72-year-old man stopped a suspected suicide bomber from detonating himself at a checkpoint in Arab Jabour Oct. 14.

The man approached a checkpoint where Mudhehr Fayadh Baresh was standing guard, but did not make it very far.

Baresh, a tribal commissioner and member of the Arab Jabour Concerned Citizens program, said he ordered the man to lift his shirt - using training received from Coalition Forces - when he did not recognize him as a local villager.

The suspect refused to lift his shirt. Baresh repeated the command again, and the suspect exposed his suicide vest, running toward the checkpoint.

Baresh opened fire which caused the vest to detonate, killing the suspect.

Rebecca Aquilar would presumably not approve.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:41 AM | Comments (4)

October 17, 2007

"Surge" Drawdown to Begin in December

Robert Burns of the Associated Press notes that the beginning of the end of the "surge" will begin in Iraq in December in Diyala province:

Commanders in Iraq have decided to begin the drawdown of U.S. forces in volatile Diyala province, marking a turning point in the U.S. military mission, The Associated Press has learned.

Instead of replacing the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division, which is returning to its home base at Fort Hood, Texas, in December, soldiers from another brigade in Salahuddin province next door will expand into Diyala, thereby broadening its area of responsibility, several officials said Tuesday.

In this way, the number of Army ground combat brigades in Iraq will fall from 20 to 19. This reflects President Bush's bid to begin reducing the American military force and shifting its role away from fighting the insurgency toward more support functions like training and advising Iraqi security forces.

The 3rd Brigade's area of operation will be added to the 4th Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, and will provide something of a test-bed to see if Iraqi security forces really can "step up as we stand down."

American forces will still be ready to assist Iraqi police, 1920s (former insurgents) militiamen, and Iraqi Army units in this province that was the scene of a U.S. invasion just months ago. al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) had declared Diyala's capital of Baqubah their base, and had pledged a Fallujah-like defense that would extract heavy casualties from invading U.S. forces.

Instead, the 1920s turned on their former allies, and helped allied U.S. and Iraqi Army forces in Operation Arrowhead Ripper, an operation that saw more than 200 al Qaeda killed and more than 100 arrested. Baqauba and Diyala have had comparatively low levels of insurgent activity since Arrowhead Ripper completed August 19.

Only time will tell if Iraqi security forces (Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army, and 1920s militiamen) will be able to maintain the relative peace in the months ahead, which may be seen as a barometer of how effective "surge" operations have been in dislodging insurgents and terrorists from civilian populations.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:24 AM | Comments (4)

Bush "Surge" Wrecks Portion of Iraqi Economy

Women, children, and minorities not hardest hit.

I say it tongue firmly in cheek. The authors of the McClatchy article, however, seem quite sincere.

A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that's cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.

Few people have a better sense of the death rate in Iraq .

"I always think of the increasing and decreasing of the dead," said Sameer Shaaban, 23, one of more than 100 workers who specialize in ceremonially washing the corpses. "People want more and more money, and I am one of them, but most of the workers in this field don't talk frankly, because they wish for more coffins, to earn more and more."

I'll look forward for McClatchy's future article on the bleak jobs outlook for IED emplacers.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:27 AM | Comments (5)

October 16, 2007

Thanks For the History Lesson

I value the writers' service and their opinions as soldiers who have served in Iraq, but wouldn't this editorial have meant more if the Washington Post had managed to find soldiers to write it who had actually been in in Iraq in the last year?

Only two of the 12 captains had been in Iraq as late as 2006, with the rest all departing in 2005 or before. None of them are currently on active duty.

While their opinions are valuable from a historical perspective based upon what they've seen while they served, they hardly seem to be best qualified to be able to comment upon the current situation on the ground in Iraq, as it has changed so radically since the last of them departed.

Those officers who are serving in Iraq currently have quite a different opinion.

When is the Post going to ask them to pen an editorial?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:25 AM | Comments (152)

October 08, 2007

Sacrificing the Dead

Baghdadi Omar Fadhil of Iraq the Model has a very provocative editorial in WSJ's OpinionJournal this morning which points out a significant momentum shift in Iraq, what al Qaeda is attempting to do to counter this primarily on the media front, and what Mr. Fadhil suggests as a possible solution.

He begins:

The latest chapter in al Qaeda's war manual in their war against the Iraqi people and the Coalition is this: raiding remote peaceful villages, burning down homes and slaughtering both man and beast. It's a campaign of self destruction.

For about a year al Qaeda has been trying to build a so called Islamic State in Iraq. On several occasions al Qaeda has even declared parts of Baghdad or other places in other provinces the capital of this Islamic State.

But now that they are losing one base after another, their objective seems to have changed from adding more towns and villages to the "state" to destroying the very same towns and villages. Obviously, it's all about making headlines regardless of the means to do that.

Fahil's statement that al Qaeda has been pushed out of major cities into the countryside may seem shocking to many casual western readers, but that is precisely what has occurred over the past year at an ever-accelerating pace. While small terrorists cells cannot possibly be eliminated in major cities, most significant groups of al Qaeda terrorists have found themselves pushed out of Fallujah, Ramadi, Baquba, Baghdad, and other metropolitian areas, and strikes by the group--and perhaps more tellingly, coalition strikes on terrorist safe houses, caches, and bomb-building factories--are mostly now occurring in remote rural areas and small, out-of-the-way villages.

As the much-maligned Iraqi Army, Police, and local militia forces are taking over once-contested neighborhoods and towns, al Qaeda has no sustainable presence or large urban areas under their control. No longer holding any sizable territory, they have been reduced to dispersing out into rural areas, and they typically only come together in numbers to launch raids un lightly-defended targets.

It is during these times on raids of villages when al Qaeda elements are massed, and often overwhelm remote "villages" that may be little more than a few tribal compounds without nearby police stations or Iraqi Army garrisons to call to provide a defense. The groups of heavily armed al Qaeda terrorists typically overwhelm the residents of these rural communities quickly, and massacre them.

Fadhil makes two proposals to deal with the threat of al Qaeda assaults on these remote villages.

The first is to establish a national alarm system which would alert the nearest coalition forces that would help villagers get out the word that an attack is underway. The problem is that often times the locations under attack are so remote that coalition forces may not arrive until after the villagers have already been massacred, leaving a victorious al Qaeda standing alone, gloating over the bodies of the dead. It is during this dark time, where most or all friendly civilians are presumed dead and al Qaeda forces are concentrated, that Mr. Fadhil makes a bold suggestion:

But even then if the troops fail to arrive in time to intercept the attack, which would be truly sad, the long distance that al Qaeda fighters would have to travel to go back to their base would require them to lose precious time since they have to rely only on ground transport on mostly exposed terrain while the troops very often have the advantage of the much faster air transport.

In the worst case scenario what's left of a village if the attack is not intercepted would be only al Qaeda fighters and the remains of what used to be a village. Now isn't that the perfect target for the countless aggressive fire units of the U.S. military?

Now please let's put emotions aside for a while because this is war we're talking about and if sacrifices cannot be avoided we should make sure the enemy pays the heaviest price possible. If reaction is quick enough--and timing here is of crucial importance--the hunt would be great and the results would be spectacular.

Critics are sure to latch onto Fadhil's comment as an echo of a flustered Major Borris' infamous "We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it" description of the re-taking of Be Tre in 1968, but that would be a statement based in ignorance and sentimentality.

Without the people, there is no village, just a collection of bullet-pocked buildings amidst a massacre, where the only men left standing are terrorists, and perhaps a handful of hidden villagers. What Fadhil is advocating is the destruction of the concentrated al Qaeda force in the event that it becomes apparent that there are no villagers left. He advocates striking al Qaeda either as they escape, or in the village itself as a last resort.

The response he advocates may sound callous, but it is pragmatic. If several dozen terrorists can be identified in a given location after a village is destroyed, either while they are still in the village or are attempting to escape, all available coalition firepower should be brought to bear to wipe out the cell, if for no other reason than to keep them from surviving to carry out future attacks on other remote villages.

After a handful of such counterstrike missions are executed successfully and al Qaeda knows that each attack on a village is tantamount to a suicide mission, one has to wonder how many more they will be willing to carry out, and what options they would have remaining in a country increasingly out of their reach to control.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:33 AM | Comments (3)

October 05, 2007

Blimps of War

Yep, you read that right, and no, Rosie O Donnell didn't have a change of heart.

Via MNC-I Press Release.

KALSU, Iraq - A helium blimp provided Coalition Forces the viewpoint to see four insurgents responsible for a roadside bomb attack Sept. 30.

The camera located inside the AEROSTAT, a helium blimp used for aerial surveillance, allowed forces to identify the location of the men who attacked a Coalition convoy southeast of Iskandariyah.

"This engagement was tailor-made for the AEROSTAT," said 1st Lt. Vitaly Gelfgat of Princeton, N.J. "We saw the blast, found the insurgents responsible and then responded with the necessary force."

This was the second kinetic action that was initiated by AEROSTAT surveillance.

"The mission of the AEROSTAT is to monitor roads, impact areas, provide battle damage assessments and give constant aerial surveillance for defensive purposes," said Sgt. Reuben Carrington of Cabot, Ark.

This multi-million dollar blimp is equipped with a specialized camera that allows its user to see a full 360 degrees with distances ranging from 10 meters to several kilometers 24 hours a day.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:14 AM | Comments (4)

Madhi Army Martyrdom Successful

When a heavily-armed, air-supported U.S. Army unit comes to town, it is rarely in your best interests to fire on them unless entering the afterlife is your goal:

U.S. forces killed at least 25 members of a rogue Shiite militia in a heavy firefight early Friday, the military said.

The troops were targeting a militia commander believed to be associated with members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force and responsible for moving weapons from Iran into Baghdad, the military said.

A group of men opened fire on the U.S. soldiers with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and at least one man was carrying what appeared to be an anti-aircraft weapon, the military said. Two buildings were destroyed and at least 25 people were killed in the ensuing battle.

U.S. aircraft repeatedly bombed the Shiite section of Khalis, about 50 miles north of Baghdad, according to an Iraqi army official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. At least 17 were killed, 27 were wounded and eight others were missing, he said.

You'll note that groups associated with Iran's Quds Force and their smuggling networks have been repeatedly hammered since the start of the "surge," and that as a result, attacks on coalition forces with EFPs have dropped significantly.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:08 AM | Comments (0)

October 04, 2007

VIDEO: Blackwater Chopper Evacs Polish Ambassador after IED Attack

Via LiveLeak.com, those are Blackwater USA personnel evacuating the wounded Polish ambassador to Iraq after his convoy was hit by at least two IEDs. Polish security guard, Bartosz Orzechowski and an unnamed Iraqi civilian died in the attack.

Blackwater didn't fire a shot during this mission, as shocking as that may be to some. It is one of at least 15,805 Blackwater USA missions where shots were not fired. I'm not justifying prior behavior, just attempting to point out the behavior that is more typical.

As for the atypical missions such as the recent disastrous shooting at Nisoor Square, Congress is taking steps to rectify deficiencies under current law that some argue makes private security contractors immune from prosecution.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:22 PM | Comments (3)

September 29, 2007

"Baiting Sniper" Found Not Guilty of Murder

Via a MNF-I press release:

A military panel found Sgt. Jorge Sandoval from Laredo, Texas, not guilty of murder Sept. 28.

Sandoval was found not guilty of murdering an unknown male April
27. He was also found not guilty of murdering an unknown male May 11;
placing an AK-47 rifle on the body and failing to ensure humane
treatment of the victim while he was being detained.

Sandoval was found guilty of placing command wire on the body of
the male victim on April 27.

The military panel will reconvene Sept. 29 for Sandoval's
sentencing. He can face between six months to five years in prison.

Some background here.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:29 AM | Comments (5)

September 27, 2007

Surrender

Based upon their statements in last night's Democratic Presidential debate, the leading candidates have surrendered the thought of a near-term military pullout from Iraq.

From the Associated Press:

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013. "I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Senator Christopher Dodd and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said that they would pull out American military forces if elected president, but with Richardson currently polling at only 3% and Dodd not even on the radar at 1%, what they feel, frankly, matters little.

As Bryan notes at Hot Air, "The netroots ain't gonna like this."

He's quite right, but at this point, they seem not to matter.

"Captain Ed" Morrissey gives General David Petraeus credit for shifting the debate over the war:

How far has General David Petraeus moved the debate on Iraq? His testimony on the surge, and the effects of the surge itself, has made it much more difficult for Democrats to argue for withdrawal and defeat...

[snip]

...Americans don't like to lose wars, and given the successes that Petraeus has generated, more Americans see an opportunity to persevere in Iraq. Leading Democrats realize now that running as the party of defeat when we continue to gain ground may sound good in the primaries, but will be disastrous in the general election.

What we may--and I caution, may--be witnessing here is a bursting of the progressive blogosphere's image of its influence over the rest of the Democratic Party.

I'm not stating by any stretch of the imagination that the entire online progressive community has been neutered as the result of a presidential primary debate that few American watched, but it should be sobering nonetheless for groups such as A.N.S.W.E.R., Code Pink, and others who have made their primary political issue the full, near-term withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi soil.

The three front-running Democratic candidates have said, in no uncertain terms, that they will not commit to a pull-out during the next presidency. The very vocal supporters of these groups have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the Democratic frontrunners do not think that their arguments are viable.

General Petraeus' Congressional testimony changed few minds on Iraq, but the testimony of men and women on the ground as to the effects of the "surge" seem to have created a groundswell of what may not be support for the war, but is certainly at least tolerance among the American people to give our military and the Iraqi people the chance to continue the campaign.

It was this tolerance and trust of our soldiers and the Iraqi people that anti-war types have tried since 2003 to undermine.

They've constantly played the refrain over and over again of Abu Ghraib and other atrocities large and small, inevitable failure, nefarious schemes and schemas, and unnecessary deaths that would only end, and could only end, if American forces turned tail and fled Iraq, to let it become a failed state. Worse, they often protrayed Iraqis themselves as a blood-lusting "other," that longs only for war and martyrdom, instead of stability, opportunity, and hope for their children.

But Iraqis love their children.

With the help of American sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines, Iraq's villagers and tribesmen have joined in their own grassroots efforts towards stabilizing Iraq, with both provincial Sunnis and Shias fighting back against terrorists, extremists, and criminals responsible for so much of the nation's violence. They do so by forming their own federally-recognized militias, the police and the Army, and joining a political process they once shunned. The small towns and villages are leading, and larger towns and national politicians seem to be slowly following their lead, even as outsiders from al Qaeda and Iran find Iraqi lands to be less hospitable and far more lethal than they once were.

When a terrorist car bomb decimates a tribal militia checkpoint guarding a village, and the townspeople rebuild and re-man the checkpoint even as the dead are being laid to rest, that makes a statement. When terrorists blow up a police recruiting center and potential recruits step into the footprints of those who have fallen before them, it makes a statement.

This is a budding grassroots effort that Americans watching the conflict are willing to get behind.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have grasped this truth.

The netroots, it seems, will take a while longer.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:48 AM | Comments (6)

September 21, 2007

Blackwatered Down

The New York Times has a very informative article up this morning by Sabrina Tavernise and James Glanz about the Blackwater/Nisour Sqaure shooting. The article focuses on the Iraqi government claim that Blackwater security contractors opened fire unprovoked on Iraqi civilians.

Iraq’s Ministry of Interior has concluded that employees of a private American security firm fired an unprovoked barrage in the shooting last Sunday in which at least eight Iraqis were killed and is proposing a radical reshaping of the way American diplomats and contractors here are protected.

In the first comprehensive account of the day’s events, the ministry said that security guards for Blackwater USA, a company that guards all senior American diplomats here, fired on Iraqis in their cars in midday traffic.

The document concludes that the dozens of foreign security companies here should be replaced by Iraqi companies, and that a law that has given the companies immunity for years be scrapped.

Four days after the shooting, American officials said they were still preparing their own forensic analysis of what happened in Nisour Square. They have repeatedly declined to give any details before their work is finished.

Privately, those officials have warned against drawing conclusions before American investigators have finished interviewing the Blackwater guards. In the Interior Ministry account — made available to The New York Times on Thursday — Iraqi investigators interviewed many witnesses but relied on the testimony of the people they considered to be the four most credible.

The account says that as soon as the guards took positions in four locations in the square, they began shooting south, killing a driver who had failed to heed a traffic policeman’s call to stop.

“The Blackwater company is considered 100 percent guilty through this investigation,” the report concludes.

The version of events told by Blackwater employees, some Iraqi eyewitnesses, and even the early Interior Ministry accounts, relays an entirely different story:

The ministry said the incident began around midday, when a convoy of sport utility vehicles came under fire from unidentified gunmen in the square. The men in the SUVs, described by witnesses as Westerners, returned fire, the ministry said.

Blackwater's employees were protecting a U.S. official when they were hit by "a large explosive device, then repeated small-arms fire -- and to the point where it disabled one of the vehicles, and the vehicle had to be towed out of the firefight," said Marty Strong, vice president of Blackwater USA.

A senior industry source said Blackwater guards had escorted a State Department group to a meeting with U.S. Agency for International Development officials in Mansour before the shootings.

A car bomb went off about 80 feet (25 meters) from the meeting site and the contractors started evacuating the State Department officials, he said. A State Department report on the attack said the convoy came under fire from an estimated eight to 10 people, some in Iraqi police uniforms.

The guards called for backup, at one point finding their escape route blocked by an Iraqi quick-reaction force that pointed heavy machine guns at one vehicle in the convoy. A U.S. Army force, backed by air cover, arrived about half an hour later to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone, the report states.

A team from another security company passed through the area shortly after the street battle.

"Our people saw a couple of cars destroyed," Carter Andress, CEO of American-Iraqi Solutions Groups, told CNN on Monday. "Dead bodies, wounded people being evacuated. The U.S. military had moved in and secured the area. It was not a good scene."

You'll note that the Interior Ministry's current claim has quietly dropped all mention of the convoy coming under fire, and of Blackwater employees returning fire instead of instigating it.

Nor does the version of events carried in the Times account for the more than one dozen other people killed or wounded in the square, and focuses on one family, in one car. A week into this story, we are no closer to any real answers about how the events transpired, who should shoulder the blame, or if the blame for civilian deaths should be shared between security contractors, insurgents, police and innocent mistakes by Iraqi civilians.

What we can comment on is the opportunism being displayed by many in this tragedy and the political rush to judgment by both government officials and pundits.

As the Jones Commission Report has made clear, the forensic capabilities of Iraqi police investigators are dubious, at best. As a result of their lack of training and equipment for forensic evidence gathering, processing, and analysis, "CSI Baghdad" is forced to rely heavily on eyewitnesses statements and personal observations of the investigators, which of course are prone to interpretation, biases, cognitive processing errors, etc. As we have radically different interpretations from the Iraqi government, Blackwater's spokespersons, and vastly different versions of events told by various eyewitnesses, it may very well be that we never precisely find out what happened shortly after noon this past Sunday in Nisour Square.

It may not matter.

Experts intimately familiar with the political terrain in Iraq have already stated that Blackwater's guilt was a foregone conclusion, as it is a valuable political tool for a battered Iraqi government.

Likewise, political pundits outside of Iraq, primarily opponents of the Iraq War, have used this latest incident to attack Blackwater in specific and security contractors in general for past offenses, and take for granted Blackwater's "obvious" guilt in this instance as well for political reasons of their own.

Why shouldn't they?

Public perception and political self-reinforcement have far exceeded any rational discussion of culpability in this case. Who is actually to blame for instigating the shootout and deaths at Nisour Square has become sadly irrelevant. Whether or not excessive force was used does not matter. Nor does it matter that despite the factually ignorant and frankly hysterical criticisms of some, security firms operating in Iraq are indeed susceptible to Iraqi law.

The truth of this matter has become a casualty to convenience.

Not that anyone cares.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:27 AM | Comments (76)

September 19, 2007

Shelf-Life: How Long Can a WMD-Armed SCUD Remain Fueled?

According to Janes Defence Weekly and carried in the Jerusalem Post, a Syrian SCUD-C missile exploded while being armed with a chemical warhead in late July, spreading a lethal mix of nearby WMDs. Dozens were killed:

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

As you may imagine, other bloggers are tracking this story, and Ynet news adds detail, including that the specific warhead in question was loaded with mustard gas, and that the explosion started due to a fire in the Scud-C's engine.

Chemically and historically, most weaponized mustard gas weapons retain their lethality for decades, but I'd still like to know the answer to some questions about the missile's fuel system to gauge how much of a direct threat this was or wasn't to Israel and to American forces in Iraq.

SCUD-C missiles are single-stage liquid-fueled missiles. Obviously, an empty missile does not catch fire and explode with enough force to detonate surrounding materials. Therefore, this SCUD-C was obviously fueled. This leads to the following questions:

  • How are these missiles typically stored in peace-time Syria, full of liquid propellant, or empty?
  • Is there any sort of practical shelf-life to the liquid fuels used to power Syrian SCUD-C missiles?
  • Are they capable of being stored full of fuel for extended periods of time, or are they only fueled shortly before launch?

The mere act of mounting a mustard gas warhead on a missile does not necessarily mean that an attack is imminent, but if we knew more about how long a loaded Syrian SCUD-C can remain fueled, we might have a better idea just how serious of a threat this may have been.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:29 AM | Comments (18)

September 18, 2007

Wife of Downed Pilot Blasts Media/Terrorist Propaganda

As Rusty notes, the media largely ignores her.

Several of the local Arizona media outlets (AZ Family (NBC), KPNX, AZ Central) carried the story, but several other local media outlets including the local Fox News, CBS, and ABC affiliates did not.

No national media outlets have carried the story at all.

Her absolute moral authority apparently doesn't matter as much as that of some.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:40 PM | Comments (0)

Iraqi Insider: Blackwater Firestorm All About Internal Politics

I sent the following last night to a source intimately familiar with the Iraqi Interior Ministry:

...could the sudden [Iraqi government political] attack on Blackwater possibly be in retaliation for the "Jones Commission" report that panned the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and advocated disbanding the national police?

...I would not be surprised if the backlash over Sunday's shooting was planned, and waiting for an event to pin it on.

I wanted to know if the situation with Blackwater "smelled."

His response:

Bob,

Blackwater doesn't smell: It's all about internal politics.

Bolani walks a thin line: he is a Shia without strong party
affiliations. He was the least objectionable Shia to a Sunni minority
who knew they'd never get one of their own into that Ministry.

Bolani is beholden to MNSTC-I/CPATT for supplies, training and money
-- but he also needs support in Parliament and among tribal leaders to
get things done (recruiting, intelligence and minimizing attacks on his
police officers as they try to establish peace).

By attacking Blackwater and standing up to the US over this, he gains
internal support for projects that the US can't help him with. He'll
eventually back down because he can't stay where he is without US
support, but he can't advance internal security without assistance
from other groups as well.

I predict this will end in a compromise: a few people will be fired,
Blackwater will ratchet down their posture a bit and the mission will
continue.

Related thoughts here.

Update: Bryan has an excellent roundup on this subject at Hot Air, and there is more about contractor licensing at the Washington Times

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:03 PM | Comments (2)

It's a Trap!

I've avoided commenting on the Blackwater story until this point because there simply wasn't enough detail on this specific incident.

It just got more interesting:

The ministry said the incident began around midday, when a convoy of sport utility vehicles came under fire from unidentified gunmen in the square. The men in the SUVs, described by witnesses as Westerners, returned fire, the ministry said.

Blackwater's employees were protecting a U.S. official when they were hit by "a large explosive device, then repeated small-arms fire -- and to the point where it disabled one of the vehicles, and the vehicle had to be towed out of the firefight," said Marty Strong, vice president of Blackwater USA.

A senior industry source said Blackwater guards had escorted a State Department group to a meeting with U.S. Agency for International Development officials in Mansour before the shootings.

A car bomb went off about 80 feet (25 meters) from the meeting site and the contractors started evacuating the State Department officials, he said. A State Department report on the attack said the convoy came under fire from an estimated eight to 10 people, some in Iraqi police uniforms.

The guards called for backup, at one point finding their escape route blocked by an Iraqi quick-reaction force that pointed heavy machine guns at one vehicle in the convoy. A U.S. Army force, backed by air cover, arrived about half an hour later to escort the convoy back to the Green Zone, the report states.

A team from another security company passed through the area shortly after the street battle.

"Our people saw a couple of cars destroyed," Carter Andress, CEO of American-Iraqi Solutions Groups, told CNN on Monday. "Dead bodies, wounded people being evacuated. The U.S. military had moved in and secured the area. It was not a good scene."

An Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, said, "We have revoked Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq. As of now they are not allowed to operate anywhere in the Republic of Iraq. The investigation is ongoing, and all those responsible for Sunday's killing will be referred to Iraqi justice."

According to the new details in this CNN story, the Blackwater contractors were evacuating State Department personnel after a car bomb explosion when they came under small arms fire from 8-10, including personnel in Iraqi police uniforms.

It is far, far too early to think that Blackwater's security detail in this incident are anything close to being cleared, but as at least some of the wounded are admittedly not civilians as mentioned in various accounts, and multiple witnesses describe an explosive device or devices starting the ambush, followed by small arms fire, which is a typical ambush tactic. It appears that this may not be an open-and-shut case of "contractors gone wild" as some have hastily opined.

It is worth noting that the Iraqi government response could be in retaliation for the "Jones Commission" report released just weeks ago, that panned the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior for corruption and advocated disbanding the national police. I confirmed with an Iraq War analyst last night that it was possible that the backlash over Sunday's shooting (not the shooting itself) was planned in advance in retaliation for the report.

He was not stating that the attack itself was orchestrated to get Blackwater compromised, just that MOI and al-Maliki's government may have had a contingency plan set up to take advantage of such a situation when it arose to wrangle concessions from the State Department, while possibly create some political breathing room for al-Maliki's embattled government coalition.

This very well may have been a political ambush designed to take advantage of the already foundering reputations of contractors in Iraq, and Blackwater may have been pre-targeted to take advantage of the fact that they are essential to State's security.

Update: Via email this morning from Bill Roggio of The Long War Journal:

  1. State uses Blackwater extensively, so this incident gives the Government of Iraq some leverage. I expect State to negotiate to get Blackwater back online, and it will happen.
  2. Maliki needs political cover, much like he did attacking the US for raids in Sadr City last year. In the end the raids didn't stop. And in the end I think BW will be in operation in Iraq after some wrangling.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:01 AM | Comments (12)

September 12, 2007

U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Unload On Petraeus Testimony

Did I say "unload on?" I meant echoed:

At this wind-swept base near the Iranian border, the main points of Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to Congress were met with widespread agreement among soldiers: The American troop buildup is working, but the military needs more time.

Most of the soldiers at FOB Delta, some 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, were out on patrol or sleeping when Petraeus' comments were broadcast late Monday and Tuesday in Iraq.

But some heard it and others have read about it, and say they agree with their commander's assessment.

Staff Sgt. Matthew Nicholls of the 71st Medical Detachment, visiting FOB Delta from his post in southern Iraq to do an assessment, said the military still needs time to clean up mistakes made after the 2003 invasion, including the need to build an Iraqi army from scratch and to secure the borders.

"I think our initial assessment was too rosy," he said after reading about the hearings while sitting in the library at the recreation center. "It takes time to build an army and I think we should've secured the borders right away."

The 36-year-old from Mobile, Ala., also said American politicians need to be more understanding.

"They can be critical because they are politicians and their main goal is to be re-elected, but they see a much more limited piece than the troops on the ground," he said.

[snip]

Sgt. Nathaniel Killip, 24, of Indianapolis, caught part of the general's presentation on TV and said he agreed that withdrawing all U.S. troops or setting a date to do so before Iraqi security forces have proven themselves ready to take over would open the doors for insurgents to attack.

"They're just going to lay back and wait until it's a softer target," he said.

No doubt ad writers for MoveOn.org are desperately clawing through thesauri and dictionaries attempting to find synonyms for betrayal that rhyme with "Killip" and "Nicholls."

Off-Topic Update:Support citizen journalism. (hey, I only ask for donations one week a year... the other 51 weeks are free!)


Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:57 PM | Comments (18)

September 11, 2007









Remembering








Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:09 AM | Comments (1)

September 07, 2007

Name That Goon

Who...

  • ...claims that Democrats in Congress have failed to listen to the will of the American people to stop the Iraq War by surrendering?
  • ...claims that we're sacrificing the blood of American soldiers for the greed of corporations?
  • ...considers Noam Chomsky one of the West's greatest thinkers?
  • ...thinks that the news media are right-wing tools, loyal to an empire-hungry dictator?
  • ... still uses the worn-out "no blood for oil" argument?
  • ...blames America for global warming?
  • ...loathes capitalism, and thinks we are just pawns to a creeping globalism?

Select from:

  1. Keith Olbermann
  2. Osama bin Laden
  3. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
  4. all of the above

The correct answer is...

...that it's a shame you instinctly thought "D" without any hesitation at all.

Update: Socialist icon?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:57 PM | Comments (64)

Not the Least Bit Misleading

According to several news organizations, The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, perhaps better known as the Jones Commission Report, states that Iraq's national police force is so broken that they should be disbanded and began over again from scratch.

So says the U.K's Times Online:

The Iraqi national police force is riddled with militia and corruption and should be disbanded, a panel of retired US military officers has told Congress.

The 20-member panel also said today that the Iraqi Army was incapable of acting independently from US forces for at least another 18 months, and "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven".

[snip]

The commission members, who spent three weeks in Iraq this summer and conducted 150 interviews, were most damning about the Iraqi national police. They said that its parent body, the Interior Ministry, was a ministry "in name only" and rife with sectarianism and corruption. The entire 26,000-member police force should be scrapped and rebuilt anew, they said.

Ann Scott Tyson and Glenn Kesler of WaPo echo a similar account:

Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq rejected an independent commission's recommendation yesterday to disband the 25,000-strong Iraqi national police force, saying that despite sectarian influences the force is improving and that removing it would create dangerous security vacuums in key regions of the country.

Looking at these and other contemporary articles on the subject, a casual reader skimming the headlines would likely come away with the impression that we've got to fire all of Iraq's policemen and start over from scratch.

But what you would probably gather from these accounts is not a full and accurate representation of what the commission says [the report actually says far more, and covers the Iraqi military as well, but we're focusing on this one aspect for the moment]. I know, because I have a copy of the 152-page report in front of me right now.

The Jones Commission does advocate the disbanding of the 25,000-man Iraqi National Police, but what neither article mentioned is that the NP is the smallest element of the various police forces under the Ministry of the Interior.

The Commission states something quite different regarding the much larger and widespread Iraqi Police Service in their conclusion on page 108 of the report:

Conclusion: The Iraqi Police Service is incapable today of providing security at a level sufficient to protect Iraqi neighborhoods from insurgents and sectarian violence. The police are central to the long-term establishment of security in Iraq. Tbe be effective in combatting the threats that officers face, including sectarian violence, the Iraqi Police must be better trained and equipped. The Commission believes that the Iraqi Police Service can improve rapidly should the Ministry of the Interior become a more functional institution.

There are more than 200,000 civilian personnel in the Iraqi security services, and the commission indicates that the biggest problem for the bulk of those police officers in the Iraqi Police Service is that they undertrained and under-equipped. Tehy also state that if they received the training and material support they need, they are expected to improve rapidly.

Funny how the media reports forget to mention that on page 102, the Commission notes that in 2004, the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team requested funding for 6,000 police advisors to train a force of 135,000, and that Congress only approved funds for 1,000 advisors. Today, the Iraqi police have over 230,000 officers, and only 900 international police advisors and roughly 3,500 military personnel filling these necessary advisory roles.

Harry Reid and the Democrats keep shrieking that it is time for a "change of course" in Iraq.

Perhaps they could start by providing the police with the funding for the advisors they need, which by the way, is another Commission recommendation that you won't hear too many Democrats repeating.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (4)

September 06, 2007

New Major Offensive in Northern Iraq Underway: Media Caught Flat-Footed?

They're calling it, "Lightning Hammer II," and it seeks to build on the gains made in pushing al Qaeda out of Baquba and surrounding areas in Diyala Province.

About 14,000 Iraqi security forces stationed throughout Nineveh province and 12,000 U.S. soldiers are conducting the operation, which started Wednesday evening.

The military said the operation "follows Lightning Hammer I ... to deny al Qaeda safe haven in the provinces" of Salaheddin, Nineveh, Diyala, and Kirkuk.

The military said the original Operation Lightning Hammer -- August 13 to September 1 -- ousted militants from the Diyala River valley, northeast of Baquba, the capital of Diyala province.

"Al Qaeda cells were driven from Baquba in Diyala due to Operation Arrowhead Ripper in June and July and then pursued in the Diyala River valley during Operation Lighting Hammer in August," Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning and Multinational Division-North.

I'd tell you more, but right now, there doesn't seem to be a lot more to tell. As of this particular moment, CNN seems to have the only account of this 26,000-man offensive in northern Iraq, and I'm unable to find any story related to a new Iraqi offensive on Google News.

Now, it could very well be that there are reporters and photographers embedded with those units taking part in the offensive that simply haven't had time or opportunity to file reports, but it is a matter of record that the wire service and larger individual news organizations largely missed out on the start of Lightning Hammer I in Diyala Province, and once the operation was underway, they only entered the battlespace very briefly--some literally staying just hours--before helicoptering back to Baghdad.

If America wonders why we get so little good news coming out of Iraq, they might want to consider that at least part of that reason is because news organizations aren't where the news is occuring.

Update: CNN seems to be merely reporting highlights of the military press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE No. 20070906-05 September 6, 2007

Operation Lightning Hammer II expands pursuit of al-Qaeda Multi-National
Division - North PAO

TIKRIT, Iraq - Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition Forces continued
their relentless pursuit of al-Qaeda in northern Iraq by launching
Operation Lightning Hammer II, Wednesday evening.

The operation, involving approximately 14,000 ISF, partnered
with more than 12,000 CF, is spearheaded by Soldiers from the 4th
Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, partnered with members of the
2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army Divisions, and Iraqi Police forces stationed
throughout Ninewa province.

In addition to the thousands of Soldiers and their ISF
counterparts participating in Lightning Hammer II, attack helicopters,
close-air support, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles and tanks
compliment the combined effort. This operation follows Lightning Hammer
I in the series of offensives to deny al-Qaeda safe haven in the
provinces of Salah ad Din, Ninewa, Diyala and Kirkuk. Operation
Lightning Hammer I, from Aug. 13 to Sept. 1, succeeded in driving enemy
elements out of the Diyala River Valley, northeast of Baqouba.

"Al-Qaeda cells were driven from Baqouba in Diyala due to
Operation Arrowhead Ripper in June and July and then pursued in the
Diyala River Valley during Operation Lighting Hammer in August," said
Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning and
Multinational Division-North. "Our main goal with Lightning Hammer II is
to continue to pursue and apply constant pressure to the terrorist cells
operating in MND-N, and destroy them where they attempt to hide."

"Our combined forces' commitment to hunt al Qaeda and its
operatives remains as strong as ever," said Mixon. "We will not rest
until al Qaeda in Iraq is driven from northern Iraq, and Iraqi citizens
have a safe and secure homeland."

I'll see if I can make contact with PAO covering this operation and provide more information as it becomes available.

Update: I checked in with the Task Force Lightning PAO, and he told me that there are a total of 11 embedded journalists in Northern Iraq. A grand total of one is from a major wire service, and five of them are in Diyala. The remaining northern provinces of Ninewa, Salah Ad Din, and Kirkuk have a total of two embedded journalists each.

How many of them are actually covering operations related to Operation Lightning Hammer II is unknown.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:59 AM | Comments (5)

September 05, 2007

AQ Bomb Plot Against American Targets in Germany Foiled

On CNN:

Three terror suspects held in Germany planned to carry out "imminent" and "massive" bombs attacks on a U.S. air base and Frankfurt's international airport, according to prosecutors.

The suspects, two Germans aged 22 and 29 and a 29-year-old Turk, received terrorist training in Pakistan and had close ties to al Qaeda, according to Jorg Ziercke, president of Germany's Federal Criminal Investigation Office.

Ziercke said the group was united by a "hatred against American citizens" as it planned attacks against Frankfurt airport, a popular international travel hub, and Ramstein air base, a major transit point for the U.S. military into the Middle East and Central Asia.

The group had amassed 680 kg (1,500 pounds) of hydrogen peroxide to make bombs, German federal prosecutor Monika Harms told reporters on Wednesday.

Harms said the three suspects also planned to attack bars and restaurants popular with Americans.

She said the planned attacks would have been among the biggest yet on German soil. Possible scenarios would have been car bombings used in simultaneous attacks.

Officials said the hydrogen peroxide could have produced a bomb with the explosive power of 540 kg of TNT.

The article goes on to speculate that the attacks could have been planned to have occurred on September 11.

The bombers were clearly attempting to build triacetone triperoxide (TATP) bombs, a favorite of terrorists that nevertheless often fails because of its instability. Occasionally it explodes during the production/bomb preparation steps, and other times, an improper mix leads to a bomb that either burns instead of detonating, or fails to ignite at all.

Frankly, until we know more about them and learn about their amassed equipment and technical know-how, I'm going to be quite skeptical that they could have manufactured high-grade TATP in quantities sufficient to build successful bombs of the size this report suggests. I may very well be wrong, but after the failures of the second London bombers, and the Glasgow bombers, I have very little faith in the competence of the surviving al Qaeda bomb builders remaining in Pakistan and Afghanistan who train terrorists such as these.

Update: I just contacted Yassin Musharbash, one of the two Spiegel reporters who have written the definitive post on this terrorist event thus far (h/t: Hot Air, which has an excellent round-up, as always).

He has confirmed my earlier hunch that triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, was the specfic peroxide-based explosive that these suspected terrorists were planning to use. This was the same kind of explosive used successfully in the 7/7 London tube bombings, and then fizzled in similar attacks just two weeks later on 7/21.

Pajamas Media is following the story as well.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:26 AM | Comments (10)

September 02, 2007

I Love the Smell of Daily Kos in the Morning

It smells like... well, you know what it smells like if you've ever been on a cattle ranch:

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

I asked her why she is telling me this.

Her answer was really amazing.

By all means, please go over and read Maccabee's post. When you do, see if you can spot what appears to be wrong with the story, and then check your answers against mine. Who knows? You might just catch a few things I've missed.

Let me share with you what I found that has that post-digestive bovine aroma.

  • Maccabee's buddy claims:
    She started in the Marines and after 8 years her term was up. She had served on a smaller Marine carrier, and found out through a friend knew there was an opening for a junior grade LSO in a training position on a supercarrier. She used the reference and the information and applied for a transfer to the United States Navy. Since she had experience landing F-18Cs and Cobra Gunships, and an unblemished combat record, she was ratcheted into the job, successfully changing from the Marines to the Navy.
    That's a damn interesting trick, as the only non-supercarrier "smaller carriers" I'm aware of are the Tarawa-class and Wasp-class amphibious assault ships. Funny thing about the LHA and LHD classes of ships... they have very small flight decks, and are completely unsuitable for any aircraft that require arresting gear to land. As a matter of fact, they don't have arresting gear at all, and cannot land F/A-18Cs or any other fighters other than AV-B Harrier VSTOLs as a result. F/A18Cs only operate from land or U.S. Navy supercarriers. Somebody's making things up.
  • But it gets even better. The LSO also claims:
    I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth.

    "I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets.

    Now, can someone please tell me how a junior LSO--by definition, a junior grade officer on an aircraft carrier assigned to landing aircraft as her specialty--would know anything at all about how other ships are being armed? Supercarriers, to the best of my knowledge do not carry Tomahawks, which are cruise missiles fired directly from other Navy ships, and niehter stored nor fired from carriers. Such a junior officer, so far removed from munitions work, would simply not be in a position to have this knowledge.

I'm sure Navy veterans can probably pick out more improbabilities in this "LSO Beauchamp" story, but that is what I've found so far.

Macranger states that the conversation Maccabee related from the LSO would be treason if true. Luckily for Maccabee, I don't think that they have yet found a way to give imaginary friends the life sentences or death sentences that real treason requires.

Update: Kind of a "duh," moment, but as Yardbird notes in the comments, that these ships can't launch F/A-18s either, because they aren't equipped with catapults.

Real Navy fighter pilot Lex finishes off this liar here, noting that you can't become an LSO without first being a pilot.

Update: Breaking nunaim's heart, Kos calls his fellow lefties to task.

Update: Fabulist to the end, Maccabee blames her imaginary friend when caught, and then deletes the entry.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:31 PM | Comments (111)

August 29, 2007

Greetings From Mudville

A little bit of this, and a little bit of that. Greyhawk posts his latest from Baghdad in the Mudville Gazzette.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)

August 27, 2007

Video: Kidnap Victim Rescued in Baghdad

The elated outburst from the family when the terp lets them know that he victim is alive is touching.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:37 PM | Comments (1)

August 26, 2007

In Ramadi, Hope Comes in Little Things

Like new glass.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:36 AM | Comments (2)

August 02, 2007

Vacation destination: Iraq / FOB Falcon

During discussions and posting covering the Scott Thomas Beauchamp diaries Milblogger Laughing Wolf, posting at Blackfive, issued a challenge to Columbia Journalism Review's Paul McLeary.

Since there are some profound and troubling issues that remain, let me make an offer. This fat ol' crip is willing to take a leave of absence, or quit my day job if necessary, to take a trip to embed with the troops. As part of that journey, let's you and I go visit the unit in question, and let the people there tell you the problem with the message. Let's visit a few other milbloggers while we are at it, maybe a few other bloggers period, and see if they can help. I'm willing to put it all on the line right now, especially if the money could be raised to cover the process via PMI, and to ensure I still had a lair to which to return. How about it, are you and CJR willing to put your money where your mouth is? I'm willing to put my body and what meager funds I have on the line for this. How about you?
[emphasis mine]

Just four days after issuing the challenge Laughing Wolf has his response. Its game on.

A few days ago, I issued a challenge to Paul McLeary and CJR, and Paul has accepted that challenge. As he notes here and in the e-mail exchanges, he stepped in it, which is something with which I think we can all empathize. Our discussions have been interesting, thoughtful, and fruitful.

The result is that we are working together with PMI to go to Iraq and FOB Falcon. Our mutual goal is to go see the reality on the ground, find out what the troops think on the issue of Bleu Beau, blogs, blogging, and a number of other subjects.

In addition to what is done with Paul, I am looking to embed with a Marine unit while there after our time at FOB Falcon.

We do not yet know how much, if any, support will come from CJR. Therefore, we are looking for funding, and I am looking for your help to send me to Iraq. More than that, I see this as an opportunity to try and make it easier for the next trip by getting some additional resources to PMI.

As he said, Laughing Wolf's vacation to the Middle East isn't going to be a cheap trip. LW is going about it the right way in that he's not only trying to fund his trip, but by building up the resources / equipment available to PMI he's hoping to make it easier for other bloggers to embed.

So please, give what you can.
Donations though PMI (tax deductible) can be made here. Just be sure to note they are For LW Embed.

Donations to help offset his personal costs, really it isn't going to be cheap, can also be made on Laughing Wolf's personal site (on the right sidebar, both paypal and amazon).

On a personal note, I'm honored to count LW as one of the few friends I've made through blogging and can't adequately put into words how proud I am of him.

Posted by phin at 08:56 PM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2007

Errata

Wait a minute... This can't be right, can it?

...Senate Republicans pushed through a nonbinding resolution stating that "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq would "create a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies." The vote was 94-3.

Last I checked, there are right around 100 Senators, total.

If the Politico is accurate in their overwhelming vote count of 94-3, then this strongly suggests that a supermajority of Democrat Senators are admitting that the withdraw plan they clamor for will result in creating "a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies," and they still favor it.

Please tell me why these Democrat Senators will admit that they support a plan that they believe will encourage terrorism?

This telling vote was pulled from an article about how Republicans are rallying around the President and are attempting to surge in support of the surge, even as grandstanding Democrats plan to hold a sleepover in protest, no doubt telling themselves for the hundredth time that the war is lost in an effort to make that sentiment a reality.

Interestingly enough, as Senate Democrats "rough it" for the cameras on hotel-quality rolling beds, men who would consider such "hardships" a luxury are telling quite a different story.

Max Boot notes the dramatic turnaround in al Anbar Province, and posts a letter from a U.S. Army Colonel in Ramadi stating precisely how much things have changed.

General Peter Pace, the out-going chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff more-or-less dumped by an un-supportive Bush Administration, has few political reasons to help Bush, and yet, he says things like this:

After conferring with Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin and other commanders in this provincial capital west of Baghdad, Pace told reporters he has gathered a positive picture of the security environment not only here but also in Baghdad, where he began his Iraq visit on Monday.

He was asked whether this would inform his thinking about whether to continue the current strategy, with extra U.S. troops battling to secure Baghdad and Anbar province.

"It will because what I'm hearing now is a sea change that is taking place in many places here," he replied. "It's no longer a matter of pushing Al Qaeda out of Ramadi, for example, but rather — now that they have been pushed out — helping the local police and the local army have a chance to get their feet on the ground and set up their systems."

Pace said earlier in Baghdad that the U.S. military is continuing various options for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost.

Interestingly enough, the military's consideration for increasing troop numbers because of the success of the surge thus far, comes just one day after Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said that if the success of the surge continues in his area of responsibility, then the number of troops he requires may be halved.

Some folks seem to think this is a contradiction, but that simply shows that they don't understand how counterinsurgency operations are being run.

As some areas see a significant long-term turn-around, the communities they are in stabilize, begin to normalize, and have less need of a large number of combat forces. This is what Mixon was relating.

Because the new counterinsurgency strategy is showing significant signs of progress in many areas where it is being implemented--Pace called it a "sea change," remember?--the Democrat Congress and Senate are increasingly desperate to lose the war while they still can (see the overnight loserpalooza engineered by Senate Democrats tonight as a prime example of this). Should they fail to lose and Iraq emerge as some sort of even moderately successful representative government, they'll lose their foreign policy credibility for decades to come.

Knowing the sharp knives aimed at their backs and feeling a successful strategy is well within their grasp, it is quite logical that some military general officers may desire to expand the counterinsurgency operations to many other areas of Iraq perhaps faster than they otherwise might in order to satisfy a politically-craven call for an arbitrary withdrawal date.

Because of these realities, these seemingly (but not really) contradictory things could happen at the same time. While troop strength could lessen and perhaps even halve in areas where the counterinsurgency has matured, there could be a significant push to expand the "surge," requiring an influx of troops overall.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:18 AM | Comments (46)

July 16, 2007

Definitive Surge Progress Could Lead to Troop Reductions

The Coalition counterinsurgency strategy dubbed the "surge" has been so successful that U.S. soldiers in one part of Iraq could be halved by January, 2008:

Now at full strength, the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is showing "definitive progress" and the number of forces serving in Iraq’s Multi-National Division-North could be halved by summer 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said.

A reduction of U.S. forces under the general's command could begin as early as January 2008, he told Pentagon reporters via videoconference.

Mixon, commander of both Multi-National Division-North and the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division, is responsible for six Iraqi provinces in northern Iraq, including the city of Baqubah -- site of the ongoing Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

He said he has given U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, a plan indicating a possible reduction of force in Multi-National Division-North during 2008.

Mixon said the current debate over troop withdrawal should revolve around reaching a strategic "end state."

"It seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq, and how is that end state important to the United States of America, to this region and to the world, and then determine how we can reach that end state, and how much time that will take," he said. "To me, that seems to be the most important thing, because there will be consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq."

"It cannot be a strategy based on, 'Well, we need to leave,'" he added. "That's not a strategy, that’s a withdrawal."

But, doesn't the General know that the new Pelosi-led Congress and Reid-led Senate--deliberative bodies with roughly as many major legislative accomplishments as the Iraqi Parliament they criticize--are far better judges of success or failure in Iraq than the officers and soldiers actually waging the war?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:26 AM | Comments (42)

July 15, 2007

Iranian Rockets Recovered In Iraq [with Photos]

Via MNF-I:

After several rockets hit FOB Hammer on July 11, the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team maneuvered to find the source of the attack. Early on July 12, the 3rd HBCT’s unmanned aerial vehicle located 46 rocket launchers in the northern section of Besmaya Range Complex aimed at FOB Hammer. Thirty-four of the launchers were armed with Iranian 107mm rockets. The Besmaya Range Complex is adjacent to the Coalition Force base. Soldiers of the 789th Explosive Ordnance Disposal team, currently attached to the 3rd HBCT, immediately responded to the site. According to Capt. Justin Gerken, from Red Wing, Minn., commander of the 789th EOD team, 12 of the 46 rockets had already been used to attack FOB Hammer the day prior. EOD Soldiers were able to determine that the rockets originated from Iran after analyzing the unexploded ordnance. The 789th EOD team was successful in neutralizing the remaining rockets.

That press release went up yesterday. I got copies of the photographs documenting the scene from MNF-I PAO this morning.

DSC00089
Iranian 107mm rocket captured while aimed at U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq. (click photo for full size).


DSC00084
U.S. Army EOD securing Iranian 107mm rockets and launchers captured in Iraq. (click photo for full size).


IMG_0023
Unfired Iranian 107mm rockets recovered after attack on U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq. (click photo for full size).

Update: Some seem to expect these rockets and previously-captured Iranian munitions to be marked with some sort of "Iranian" language markings, whether Farsi or Persian or some other regional language.

The fact of the matter is that many countries, including Iran, use English language markings on some or all of their military ordnance, and Iran even has an English-language web site for exporting these and other military munitions.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:33 AM | Comments (32)

July 14, 2007

Anti-Bush Terrorist Convicted

It's pathetic how far BDS will lead some people.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM | Comments (32)

July 12, 2007

Harry Reid's Attemped Dodge

ABC's Jake Tapper attempted to get Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to answer a simple question: Will Iraq be safer for Iraqi civilians if we pull out?

He spins, he twists, he dives, but Harry Reid refuses to answer the question.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:47 PM | Comments (9)

July 11, 2007

Murtha's "In Cold Blood" Slur Fails to Impress Marine Hearing Officer

In November of 2005, Democrat John Murtha (Okinawa), accused American Marines of cold-blooded murder:

A US lawmaker and former Marine colonel accused US Marines of killing innocent Iraqi civilians after a Marine comrade had been killed by a roadside bomb.

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," John Murtha told reporters. The November 19 incident occurred in Haditha, Iraq.

Today, a Marine hearing officer said that charges against the first Marine coming to trial should be dropped:

The government's case against a Marine accused of fatally shooting Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha lacks sufficient evidence to go to a court-martial and should be dropped, a hearing officer determined.

The murder charges were brought against Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt for killing three Iraqi brothers in November 2005.

The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.

"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in the 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

A final decision on whether or not to drop the case will be made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM | Comments (21)

July 05, 2007

Muslim Doctors Discussed Florida Terror Strike?

Considering this is the Telegraph, I'd take this claim with a grain of salt:

One message read: "We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.

"The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy." This is thought to have been a reference to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida.

The message discussed targets at the base, adding: "These are clubs for naked women which are opposite the First and Third units."

It also referred to using six Chevrolet GT vehicles and three fishing boats and blowing up petrol tanks with rocket propelled grenades.

I haven't been to Mayport in years, but I rather suspect that the method of attack described above would have been repulsed well shy of their stated military targets.

As for the strip clubs... well, they are certainly a much softer targets than a military base and I suppose they could have killed or wounded many people if they had competently been able to carry out an attack.

If there is anything to this story, I expect that we'll see the arrest of any suspects here in the United States very soon.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:23 AM | Comments (2)

July 03, 2007

CNN: We Suck At Building Car Bombs, Too

In an effort to show what the failed FAE car bombs in London and Glasgow could have done, CNN commissioned explosives experts at New Mexico Tech to build and detonate a similar device.

Unfortunately for CNN, they made it a little too much like the failed jihadi's device.

Note when you watch this David Mattingly report that at about 1:21, the expert says, "what will happen is that this entire car will turn into shrapnel."

Eh, not so much.

After a long-winded set-up, they finally detonate the car bomb in front of a hastily-constructed wood-framed structure no more than 10 feet--perhaps the width of a parking space--away from the blast.

Mattingly's audio at around 3:34 is priceless:

Watch in slow motion as the car is blown to pieces."

Well, the back and side glass blew out, and the windshield spider-webbed and the drivers door was flung open, but as the video clearly shows, this was not successful car bomb. the Jeep was not "blown to pieces" as Mattingly claimed, nor was the expert's claim "that this entire car will turn into shrapnel" even remotely true. If this had been a successful FAE explosion, that wooden building would have been flattened and scattered like matchsticks, along with the Jeep.

The expert even admits, "casualties would probably be fire victims."

Why? Because the bomb burned, and created a small blast, but utterly failed as a a fuel-air explosive bomb.

I was amused to watch Mattingly shift gears post-blast, and explain that if this device had gone off outside of a London club, "fire could have claimed many lives." Well, yeah, providing the nightclub didn't have any other doors, or a sprinkler system.

But the kicker was watching him walk approximately 30 feet to the rear of the vehicle to pick up a nut that dribbled that far from the blast, and try to explain that it could have caused casualties. Well, I suppose it could have, but considering my seven-year old daughter can chuck one equally as far, I doubt the damage would have been that severe.

For comparative purposes, here is a video clip of a much smaller successful fuel-air explosive detonation from Futureweapons.

As you can plainly see, the blasts aren't even remotely similar in effect.

In the CNN video, the only apparent ejection of any material with any force was one of the propane tanks they claim was ejected 150 yards. Interestingly enough, I didn't see that tank ejected in any of the blast video angles show above. Did any of you catch it?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:31 AM | Comments (22)

These Are Not the Droids You're Looking For

Via a previous request to Multi-National Corps-Iraq, a picture of Iranian-manufactured TNT (top) and C4 (bottom) explosives captured in Iraq by coalition forces (click image for larger version).

explosives_2

U.S. EOD says a chemical analysis of these explosives matches those of known Iranian explosives. Because this analysis comes from explosives experts that are both (a) American, and (b) military; Glenn Greenwald is sure to allege they were actually manufactured by Halliburton in the White House basement over the weekend.

In related news, a senior Hezbollah officer working for his Iranian terror masters was captured in Basra and is singing like a bird, implicating Iranian involvement in the sophisticated January Karbala raid that left five U.S. solders dead.

Jules Crittenden separates the wheat from the chafe in the Times story, that seems to have received some "editorial help" back in New York before publication.

Update: As commenter "BohicaTwentyTwo" notes in the comments, if the explosives above are supposed to look like American munitions, they miss the mark widely.

Here is a picture of an actual M112 charge (PDF).

m112

I don't think that Iran was seriously attempting to mimic U.S. charges (U.S. charges are marked with taggants, signature trace elements that determine not just the country of origin, but also the company). I think that they were perhaps just trying to muddy the waters enough so that a generalist media could avoid looking at the evidence too hard, while allowing apologists to deny that these were Iranian charges because they were printed in English instead of Persian.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:33 AM | Comments (17)

July 02, 2007

Bless the Beasts and Children

I'll never understand why the media in Iraq finds it necessary to run poorly-sourced, suspect reports of false atrocities, when real ones are so easy to find.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:14 AM | Comments (11)

June 30, 2007

DeCapiGate

The Associated Press, Reuters, and a small Iraqi Independent news agency called Voice of Iraq released stories Thursday about the massacre of 20 men near Salman Pak, who were supposedly found decapitated on the banks of the Tigris River.

But something seemed inherently wrong with the accounts I read from the Associated Press. The only two sources for the Associated Press article were anonymous police, not located in Salman Pak, but from Baghdad (more than dozen miles away) and Kut (more than 75 miles away).

Because of this odd sourcing, I asked Multi-National Corps-Iraq and the PAO liaison to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior to investigate.

I published their preliminary findings as they came out in Bring Me The Head of Kim Gamel.

This morning, MNF-I PAO published an official denunciation of this story:

June 30, 2007 Release A070630c

Extremists using false media reporting to incite sectarian violence

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Friday, news media reported a mass killing in a village near Salman Pak where 20 men were allegedly found beheaded. It now appears that the story was completely false and fabricated by unknown sources.

Upon learning of the press reports, coalition and Iraqi officials began investigating to determine if the reports were true. Ultimately it was concluded the reports were false.

Anti-Iraqi Forces are known for purposely providing false information to the media to incite violence and revenge killings, and they may well have been the source of this misinformation.

“Extremists promote falsehoods of mass killings, collateral damage and other violence specifically to turn Iraqis against other Iraqis,” said Rear Admiral Mark Fox, spokesperson for MNF-I. “Unfortunately, lies are much easier to state, the truth often takes time to prove,” said Fox.

Not all media reports can be immediately substantiated by Government of Iraq or Coalition Forces. They must go through a process to verify such claims, to include checking with various Iraqi Ministry’s, local police and security forces. Meanwhile, extremists have achieved their goal of spreading false information aimed at intimidating civilians and destabilizing Iraqi security.

Ultimately, media reporting based on verifiable sources will reduce the possibility of misinformation unnecessarily alarming citizens.

The Associated Press, Reuters, and Voices of Iraq should immediately apologize for publishing this completely false story, and push for immediate retractions. The Associated Press should admit full responsibility for not following good journalistic practices of verifying a story though legitimate responsible sources, as they were in a headlong, reckless rush to publish.

Update: Something somewhat related, from StrategyPage:

...the Japanese psychological warfare effort during World War II included radio broadcasts that could be picked up by American troops. Popular music was played, but the commentary (by one of several English speaking Japanese women) always hammered away on the same points;
  1. Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
  2. This war is illegal.
  3. You cannot win the war.

The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message.

(Thank Ace for the title of this post)

Update: AFP is now carrying the story.

The US military accused the international media on Saturday of exacerbating Iraq's violent tensions by reporting false claims of massacres which it said were deliberately fabricated by extremist groups.

This week several newspapers and agencies reported that Iraqi police had found 20 beheaded corpses in Salman Pak, just south of Baghdad.

AFP did not carry the report after its sources were unable to confirm the rumour.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Associated Press had those same standards?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:23 AM | Comments (33)

June 29, 2007

Car Bomb Discovered in London

Luckily, alert paramedics called to a nightclub to attend a sick patron alerted police to a smoking car, who were able to diffuse it on scene.

The Guardian has the details:

A bomb made from gas cylinders, petrol and nails was found in an abandoned car in central London today, sparking a major terrorism alert. Peter Clarke, the Scotland Yard head of counter-terrorism, said the device, discovered in Haymarket - one of the capital's main nightlife districts - could have killed or injured many people.

"Even at this stage, it is obvious that, if the device had detonated, there could have been serious injury or loss of life," he said. "It was busy, and many people were leaving nightclubs."

Mr Clarke added that police had gathered CCTV evidence, but said it was too early to speculate about who could have been responsible.

[snip]

Mr Clarke said experts called to the scene found "significant quantities of petrol, together with a number of gas cylinders". "I cannot tell you how much petrol was in the car as we have not had a chance to measure, it but there were several large containers," he added.

Earlier, witnesses said they saw the light metallic green saloon car being driven erratically. It then crashed into bins before the driver ran away.

Police are searching landmark sites across London for further explosive devices, and are unsure whether the bomb was a lone device or one of several deployed across the capital. No warnings were received.

The attempted bombing in one of London's busiest districts is the first major challenge for Gordon Brown, who just succeeded Tony Blair as Britain's Prime Minister.

At this time, police have not associated the bomb with any specific group.

Closed-circuit security cameras posted in the area may have captured images of the bomber. Unverified witness accounts state that the vehicle had been driven erratically before crashing into trash bins, at which point the driver abandoned the vehicle on foot.

Because the vehicle crashed, I'm not certain that we can assume that the location the vehicle was found was the original target. If the eyewitnesses are correct--and we know that sometimes, eyewitness accounts can be contradictory--it sounds as if the bomb may have begun smoldering, causing the driver to panic, crash, and flee the scene.

I'm sure we'll know more as this story develops.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:23 AM | Comments (60)

June 27, 2007

Quietly Making Noise

It is with such mundane, rarely reported stories such as these, that counterinsurgencies take hold.

Thanks for stepping up, guys:

For a second time this week, a large cache consisting of improvised explosive device-making material and mortar rounds was turned over to Coalition Forces by the "Neighborhood Watch" in Taji, Iraq.

The Taji neighborhood watch contacted Coalition Forces June 25, after the driver of a truck fled the scene when the volunteers stopped a suspicious vehicle moving through the rural village of Abd Allah al Jasim. The vehicle contained 24 mortar rounds, two rockets, spare machine gun barrels, small arms ammunition and other IED-making material.

"This grassroots movement of reconciliation by the volunteers is taking off all around us. The tribes that had once actively or passively supported al-Qaeda in Iraq now want them out," said Lt. Col. Peter Andrysiak, the deputy commander of the 1st "Ironhorse" Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division.

The neighborhood watch is made up of a group of 500 volunteers, from a number of tribes in the area, who want reconciliation with the Coalition Forces and the Iraqi government. The volunteers are currently being vetted for possible future selection for training as Iraqi Police or some other organization within the Iraqi Security Forces.

Taji, 20 miles north of Baghdad, is perhaps most infamously known as the town where ABC News co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were seriously injured in a 2006 IED explosion, and under the Hussein regime, the site of Iraq's long-range missile program. On Saturday, four U.S. soldiers based at Fort Hood died in an IED attack there.

While our soldiers are still battling Sunni insurgent IED cells in Taji, it is worth noting the seeds to a successful counterinsurgency are being sown in Taji and elsewhere, as noted yesterday in Small Wars Journal (h/t Instapundit):

On June 15th we kicked off a major series of division-sized operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. As General Odierno said, we have finished the build-up phase and are now beginning the actual "surge of operations". I have often said that we need to give this time. That is still true. But this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.

These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we're doing in Baghdad and what's happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don't plan to leave these areas once they're secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have "gone quiet" as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action.

When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.

The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa'ida, Shi'a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that "80% of AQ leadership have fled" don’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.

It is this kind of working within the community that makes this one small story in a large war worth noting.

The "neighborhood watch" that captured this cache is composed of 500 men from various tribes in the Taji area that once supported al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency. As Dave Kilcullen notes above, it is the human terrain that matters, and the fact that these men are now actively working against al Qaeda and the insurgency, are attempting to join the political process and the Iraqi security forces, that is far more important than an increasing body count.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:30 PM | Comments (22)

June 25, 2007

Anonymous Sources: Iranian Forces Invade Iraq

Well, we saw this coming:

Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.

Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".

An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."

The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.

No doubt, certain harpies will "question the timing" before the sun comes up.

Jimmy Buffett Update: Searching for that lost shaker of salt.

Preferably, that salt will come in large grains.

I was careful last night when this claim was made to note in the headline that this story was linked to anonymous sources within the British government, and now that the Sun article has been published, I see nothing solid to which we could hang a credible claim on, other than the names of two British soldiers said killed by Iranian-placed bombs, Corporal Ben Leaning, 24, and Trooper Kristen Turton, 27.

According to Defence Internet these two soldiers were part of The Queen's Royal Lancers Battle Group, in Maysan Province, Southern Iraq, on Thursday 19 April 2007.

The story there reads:


Corporal Leaning was commanding and Trooper Turton was driving a Scimitar Armoured Reconnaissance vehicle which was providing protection for a convoy.

At approximately 1120 hrs local time, the vehicle was struck and badly damaged by an improvised explosive device attack, which killed Corporal Leaning and Trooper Turton and injured the Scimitar's gunner and two other members of the troop.

All casualties were taken by helicopter to Tallil airbase in Dhi Qar Province where they are receiving the best possible medical care for their injuries.

As it so happens, Michael Yon was there, and wrote about the attack in his dispatch, Death or Glory:

We had taken off nearly three hours earlier at 0830. At about 1120, the convoy entered the ambush. Eight of the 46 bombs detonated. EFPs tore through metal, ball bearings puncturing the vehicles, peppering them with holes. Major Edward Mack, who was at least six vehicles behind detonation in the convoy, heard two distinct explosions. He was approximately 40 meters from the nearest blast, and he reckons there was about 8 to 10 meters between the two.

WO2 (SSM) Steve McMenamy was about seventh vehicle back, 50 meters or so from the initial explosion. He felt the detonations and saw a massive black cloud. McMenamy cocked his weapon, jumped off the vehicle and took a knee, trying to assess what was happening. As the dust cloud cleared, McMenamy saw an injured soldier sitting down, shuffling himself away from the vehicle. McMenamy ran forward to check for casualties, but realized he was also running into contact, so he veered to the right and ran into culvert. He found Sergeant Jenkin kneeling and still alive.

“Are you all right?” asked McMenamy.
Jenkin grinned and answered, “No.”
McMenamy said, “Jimmy, look at me: I need to know if you are all right because I need to move forward.”
“I’m okay,” Jenkins said.

Trooper Callum McDonald helped Trooper Thompson into a drainage ditch where he was laying and moaning. Other soldiers rushed to help the wounded or to set up security. McMenamy moved forward to the stricken Scimitar, shouting to the crew, asking if anyone could hear him. He climbed onto the vehicle and saw that Turton, the driver, was dead. Climbing onto the turret, he searched for Corporal Leaning, the commander. As McMenamy crossed into the top of turret and looked into gunner’s side, he saw that Corporal Leaning was also dead.

Nothing in Yon's account of that day or his follow-up dispatch mentioned suspected Iranian involvement.

Independent of Yon's account, I contacted a senior U.S. officer in Iraq last night, and he was unable to confirm anything about the Sun story, other than that he had read it.

Like the "smoking gun" story I burned as groundless from the Independent Telegraph , this story does not have any credible supporting evidence to date.

I'll post more updates as I have them.

Another Update: Just heard from Yon via email. "48 IEDs, 46 were EFPs." He had to run (he's in a war right now, after all), and couldn't provide more info.

I have no context for this, so I'll leave you to draw your own inferences.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:01 PM | Comments (45)

June 22, 2007

Arrowhead Ripper: Surrender or Die

So Michael Yon entitles his latest post from the front lines of Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Baquba, which to date, has killed 51 members of al Qaeda and led to the capture of 20 more as of yesterday, June 21.

Surrender-or-Die
Source:Explosion in Baquba on June 12, 2007. Photo by Michael Yon.

Yon reports that the larger media organizations are finally showing up, but are having communications problems that make reporting on the battle difficult (I cleaned up the hanging HTML tag in Mike's post; I hope you don't mind):

Alexandra Zavis from Los Angeles Times is down in the heat of the battle bringing home information. Michael Gordon from New York Times is still slugging it out, and his portions are accurate in the co-authored story, "Heavy Fighting as US Troops Squeeze Insurgents in Iraqi City." (Long title.)

CNN has joined the fight. AP came but will stay only a few days. Joe Klein from TIME was here on the 21st and his story posted the same day and was accurate. We rode together in a Stryker. Like magic, Joe’s story was out before I got back to base. Joe took a helicopter out and filed from elsewhere. I’m having comms problems here which is greatly slowing the flow. My Thuraya satellite phone and RBGAN satellite dish are not working for hours each day. The AP reporter is having the same problems. The signal degradation is caused by a special sort of RF interference. Moving our antennas around won’t work. We simply get cut off for long periods.

If these communications problems sounds familiar, it should: Yon and other journalists have faced these issues for years:

Valuable stories about our soldiers and the battle are being lost and will never be filed because reporters, after a long day of being on the battlefield, cannot make a simple phone call, or file a story. Why be here? It’s pretty dangerous, and insurance is expensive. I had to skip a mission this morning because I cannot make communications, and am down to filing stories on the fly again without time for editing. There is no other way to keep the flow open, and if you are reading this, it’s only after I’ve wasted hours trying to upload it. Hours I could have been with our soldiers, telling about their days in one of the most important battles of this war.

Frankly, the military has had since 2003 to work on these issues, but setting up communications for reporters has always seemed to be an afterthought, if thought of at all. In a war where media access and coverage driving public opinion is as important to success as combat and humanitarian operations on the ground, there is simply no good excuse for this.

I suspect that a lot of the interference reporters are encountering with their comms are directly the result of ECM jamming to keep al Qaeda from communicating, but as U.S. military comms work, they should be able to dedicate one line or frequency for media reporting. Hopefully, the PAO will get these problems resolved, ASAP.

Otherwise, while Yon is very impressed with U.S. forces and the level of access he and other reporters have been afforded to cover the battle. He is far less impressed with local Iraqi military commanders, who have a tendency to act like state officials in Louisiana:

I’ve seen them in meeting after meeting, over the past few days, finding ways to be underachievers. The Iraqi commanders have dozens of large trucks and have only to drive to our base to collect the supplies and distribute those supplies to the people displaced in the battle. Our troops are fully engaged in combat, yet the Iraqi leaders were not able to carry that load without LTC Johnson supplying the initiative. The Kurds would have had this fixed yesterday. The Iraqi commanders in Mosul would have fixed this. The local Iraqi command climate is disappointing by comparison.

As for his impressions of how our soldiers are performing in Baquba, I'll send you over to Mike's site to read the rest.

As noted above by Yon above, reporters are finally flooding into Baquba to cover Operation Arrowhead Ripper, but communications problems seem to be limiting the information getting out.

One story that did get out, from Reuters reporter Alister Bull, highlights the depravity of the enemy we are fighting:

Bednarek said U.S. forces were making some grisly discoveries as they scoured Baquba. He said residents led soldiers to a house in the western part of the city that appeared to have been used to hold, torment and kill hostages. Soldiers destroyed it.

"When you walk into a room and you see blood trails, you see saws, you see drills, knives, in addition to weapons, that is not normal," Bednarek said.

That soldiers uncovered an al Qaeda torture house is unsurprising; soldiers in another part of Operation Phantom Thunder, in a sub-operation called Operation Commando Eagle, captured an al Qaeda torture manual on CD when they captured several terrorists yesterday. We've seen these before.

Like yesterdays' account from Joe Klein of TIME, Bull reports that members of the insurgent 1920s Revolutionary Brigades are helping U.S. forces route al Qaeda.


arrowhead_ripper061907
Source:Soldiers assigned to the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, move down a neighborhood street during Operation Arrowhead Ripper, June 19, 2007, in Baqouba, Iraq. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Armando Monroig.

This sounds familiar.

MNC-I release an account this morning that may provide anecdotal evidence that al Qaeda in Baquba was truly surprised by the swiftness and effectiveness of how quickly American forces were able to cordon off Baquba and trap them inside, as al Qaeda fighters desperately attempted to use an ambulance to escape:

Coalition Forces intercepted an ambulance carrying seven suspected al-Qaida operatives attempting to circumvent security elements operating in Baqouba, June 19. Local doctors called the Diyala Provincial Joint Coordination Center and reported five children injured near Khatoon, a neighborhood in southwest Baqouba, Iraq. The PJCC dispatched an ambulance to that location.

Later, the ambulance was seen heading north on a road northwest of New Baqouba when it bypassed the road that led to the hospital.

The ambulance was stopped by alert Soldiers from 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Lewis, Wash., who are conducting missions in the area as part of Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

Soldiers checked the ambulance and found a driver and six men, who appeared to be in their 20s and 30s, two of which were injured. There were no children in the ambulance.

CF provided medical treatment to the wounded men and detained all seven.

If this sounds familiar, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists have frequently used ambulances and even media vehicles to transport men and munitions in their ever-present conflict with Israeli forces.

Another MNC-I release states that U.S. attack helicopters have killed at least 13 al Qaeda terrorists and leveled their compound, and found a Baquba school rigged with explosives:

In a separate engagement, CF Soldiers discovered an empty school complex rigged with explosives in Baqouba, the capital city of Diyala province, Thursday, during Operation Arrowhead Ripper. Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment discovered the booby-trapped school complex. An investigation of the area determined the school and surrounding buildings had been abandoned. CF had to destroy the school due to risk to the community. CF were unable to disable the explosives because of instability. Ground forces effectively coordinated a precisions guided munitions strike and successfully destroyed the school-borne IED.

The release concludes:

As Arrowhead Ripper continued through June 21, at least 51 al-Qaida operatives have been killed, with 20 al-Qaida operatives detained, seven weapons caches discovered, 21 improvised explosive devices destroyed and nine booby-trapped structures destroyed.

Hopefully we'll be able to update this developing story as more media are able to file reports.

Update: A.J. Strata has his own roundup posted here.

Update: A short email from Mike Yon:

They are in trouble here, Bob. Operation Arrowhead Ripper is going very well. This is a problem for Al Qaeda here.

Based on what Yon has said both in his emails to me and Glenn, and probably others, and what he has said in his posts from Baquba stating his near unfettered access to the Operation Arrowhead Ripper tactical operations center (TOC) for U.S. and Iraqi forces, he is obviously privy to information that shows al Qaeda in Baquba has every appearance of having been successfully surrounded and cut-off.

Yon noted in his latest post that he and other journalists cannot send out reports via cell phone or satellite, indicating that the military is probably jamming non-military electronic transmissions in the area (I'm sure al Qaeda already knows that their phones don't work, or I wouldn't post it).

This means that al Qaeda, which typically carries cell and/or sat phones for communications, is hampered from cummunicating position-to-position within Baquba, and is probably cut off to external cells in surrounding towns and villages as well. It also probably means that their long-standing tactic of using cell phones to rig command-detonated IEDS has been either eliminated, or at least severely hampered.

It seems that U.S. forces may have learned from Fallujah and other operations where the weaknesses in their earlier cordon operations have been, and have closed those gaps in Baquba.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:06 AM | Comments (2)

June 21, 2007

Allen: Fallujah to be Clear of al Qaeda by August

I wonder how much it pained AP's Kim Gamel to write this:

A U.S. Marine commander in Anbar province predicted that al-Qaida fighters will be expelled from Fallujah by August as the military moves to cut insurgent supply and reinforcement lines into Baghdad and surrounding areas.

Brig. Gen. John Allen, the deputy commander for American forces west of Baghdad, said al-Qaida in Iraq has largely been pushed out of population centers in much of the Anbar province.

He cited the success in turning Sunni tribes against the organization and an influx of American troops to chase al-Qaida out of Iraqi and regions around the capital.

"The vast majority of them have been pushed out of the population centers," Allen said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press. "The surge has given us the troops we needed to really clear those areas, so we cleared them and we stayed."

He said U.S. and Iraqi troops were trying to repeat recent success in calming Ramadi, the provincial capital, using the same neighborhood-by-neighborhood tactics in Fallujah -- a Sunni insurgent bastion that was first cleared by a massive American assault in 2004.

Allen also stated Karmah would be clear of al Qaeda by July.

Over at TIME, Joe Klein helicoptered his way into Baquba, and unleashed a surprisingly objective post showing that Sunni Awakening movement that has largely led al Qaeda to flee their one time stronghold in al Anbar province has spread to Diyala province as well, where American forces were getting help from Sunni insurgents:

A lieutenant colonel named Bruce Antonia told Odierno about preparing to attack the Buhritz neighborhood a few nights earlier when he was approached by local Sunni inusurgents—members, they said, of the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades—who were streaming out of the neighborhood. "They said they'd been fighting al-Qaeda but had run out of ammunition and asked us to supply them. We told them, 'Show us where AQ is and we'll fight them.'" The insurgents did and the neighborhood was cleared.

A second lieutenant colonel named Avanulis Smiley picked up the story from there, "Sir, they've also showed us seven buried IED sites. They gave us specific information—description of the houses, gate color, tree trunks."

After the briefing I asked Colonel Antonia if he'd asked the Sunnis why they had turned against al-Qaeda. "They said it was religious stuff," he said. "AQI demanded that the women wear abayas, no smoking and they preached an extreme version of Islam in the mosque. They'd also spent the winter without food and fuel because of the violence al-Qaeda was causing. One guy said to me, 'We fought against you because you invaded our country and you're infidels. But you treat us with more dignity than al-Qaeda,' and he said they'd continue to work with us. I've been involved in many operations here and this is a first—usually everybody's shooting at us. This is the first time we've had any of them on our side." (In web postings, the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade has denied it is cooperating with the Americans.)

Sadly enough, the majority of the media has chosen to focus on the tragic deaths of 14 American troops in combat, instead of what the operations these men were a part of are attempting to accomplish. As is so often the case, Allahpundit puts the media's choice in stark relief.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:10 PM | Comments (26)

June 20, 2007

The Silence of the Lambs

WWJD?
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:58 PM | Comments (1)

Support the Marines

This just in via email from Blackfive:

With combat operations in Iraq as kinetic as they've ever been, the Marines could use your support. No links, just please use the info below at your discretion. At Blackfive, we have been trying to improve our relationship with the Public Affairs Officers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the Marines have begun a really intense exchange of ideas with us. One Marine Combat Commander embraced our offer of support. One of the requests that they had of us was to attempt to get 6,000 positive and supportive emails - one for each Marine, Sailor and Soldier in the Marine Regimental Combat Team - 6. Grim, our resident thinker and former Marine at Blackfive, has taken responsibility for this project. From Grim's interview with Marine Colonel Simcock, Commander of RCT-6: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/06/roundtable_with.html
COL. SIMCOCK: (Chuckles.) I'll tell you what, the one thing that all Marines want to know about -- and that includes me and everyone within Regimental Combat Team 6 -- we want to know that the American public are behind us. We believe that the actions that we're taking over here are very, very important to America. We're fighting a group of people that, if they could, would take away the freedoms that America enjoys. If anyone -- you know, just sit down, jot us -- throw us an e- mail, write us a letter, let us know that the American public are behind us. Because we watch the news just like everyone else. It's broadcast over here in our chow halls and the weight rooms, and we watch that stuff, and we're a little bit concerned sometimes that America really doesn't know what's going on over here, and we get sometimes concerns that the American public isn't behind us and doesn't see the importance of what's going on. So that's something I think that all Marines, soldiers and sailors would like to hear from back home, that in fact, yes, they think what we're doing over here is important and they are in fact behind us.

The Marines have set up a special email address to send a supportive message to the Marines is: RCT-6lettersfromh@gcemnf-wiraq.usmc.mil . The emails are being scanned by the PAO before being printed and distributed to individual Marines.

And, guess what?, the RCT-6 has a blog at http://fightin6thmarines.vox.com/

AFTER A FEW DAYS, WE HAVE ONLY GOTTEN THE MARINES ABOUT 2,000 EMAILS. WE COULD USE SOME HELP IN GETTING THE WORD OUT.

Thanks!

Best,

Matt

You're waiting for what, exactly?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:45 PM | Comments (0)

Recycling the Dead

Just eight days ago, in advance of the now-engaged campaign in Baquba, Italian-based "news" site Uruknet re-posted in full an article by The Peoples Voice, a site dedicated, according to the masthead, to "Environmental, political, and social justice issues."

The People's Voice post attempts to re-raise the specter of the "illegal" use of Mark 77 firebombs and white phosphorus ordnance that they and other questionable media outlets claimed were used against civilians in the 2004 assault on Fallujah and in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. The article features three graphic pictures of victims that the site intones were killed with firebombs and white phosphorus.

There's a funny thing about at least two of those three pictures, however.

The first image they use in line with comments about the use of Mark 77 firebombs in 2003 was actually taken in Fallujah in 2004, following the American assault on that city, and was featured in the Italian-made documentary Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre that I roundly debunked in November of 2005.

As I stated at the time about this photo:

Body 3. 9:38 Extremely decomposed remains, cause of death undetermined. No apparent burn marks on the body or clothes.

Body 3 referred to the order of appearance of the remains, and 9:38 corresponds to when the photo was shown in the documentary. Interestingly enough, while the People's Voice leave the reader to infer that this body was the victim of a firebomb, the Italian documentary claimed that this body had been killed by white phosphorus. Details, details...

While the photo is of extremely low quality (and therefore easy to spin any way you desire), it is clear the corpse is clothed. Something that burns as hot as napalm or firebomb would likely have burned the clothing completely away, if not most or all of the body as well.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know what killed this suspected insurgent in Fallujah, and the attempt by the RAI documentary to claim he/she was a victim of white phosphorus is equally irresponsible as the People's Voice attempt to link the corpse to a a strike by a Mark 77 at any point in the war, much less a period in time that doesn't coincide with the claims made in the article's text.

The next body shown in the People's Voice article was also lifted from the RAI documentary, and led the reader to believe this body was the dead suspected insurgent was killed by white phosphorus.
Really?

As I noted when I first saw this picture in the RAI documentary:

Body 18. 19:40 Military-aged male, moderately decomposed. No sign of burns on face or clothes.

Once again, (like every single photo in the RAI documentary) there is no physical evidence on this corpse consistent with white phosphorous wounds.

Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield (England), after seeing these bodies in the RAI documentary, said:

..."nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition".

It might also be worth noting that the author of the Guardian article cited above made false claims regarding the use of thermobaric weapons in Fallujah (to the best of my knowledge, precisely one thermobaric weapon has been dropped in wartime, and that was used against a cave in Afghanistan).

The third body shown in the People's Voice article, point or origin unknown, also shows a badly decomposed body, cause of death unknown and partially skeletal, as some sort of incendiary weapons victim as well, without any pathological proof presented.

As for the actual charges made in the People's Voice article...

Well, to call them "highly selective" in nature would be fair, as would be calling them "inconsistent" with the military use of white phosphorus even on personnel, "ignorant" as to its actual effects of such weapons on the human body (it would burns holes in a person that did not brush or shake it off; it does not engulf them), and "misleading" overall.

In other words, the entire article is unreliable, but as People's Voice is concerned with environmental issues, we can at least commend them for recycling the dead.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:36 AM | Comments (15)

Arrowhead Ripper: In Your Face

MNF-I released comments this morning regarding the opening day of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, targeting al Qaeda elements in Baquba, capitol of Iraq's Diyala Province.

The 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division launched the offensive with a quick-strike night air assault early Tuesday morning.

"The end state is to destroy the al-Qaeda influences in this province and eliminate their threat against the people," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commanding general of operations for the 25th Infantry Division. "That is the number one, bottom-line, up-front, in-your-face task and purpose."

About 10,000 Soldiers, with a full complement of attack helicopters, close-air support, Strykers and Bradley fighting vehicles, are taking part in Arrowhead Ripper, which is still in its opening stages. Elements of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division; the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division and the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade are also participating in the operation.

The MNF-I release claims 22 terrorists killed; VOA News now puts the count at 30, while Earthtimes says 13 other suspect members of al Qaeda were captured, along with weapons caches and roadside bombs.

Soldiers from the 2nd Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army also engaged al Qaeda targets in Baquba, killing four suspected terrorists and capturing two more.

One U.S. soldier has been killed and two have been injured thus far in the operation.

* * *

I'd remind readers that this operation, just underway, will no doubt result in an attempt by al Qaeda propagandists and journalists with questionable sources to allege war crimes, as similar debunked charges were brought up during and after the battle of Fallujah.

Some ersatz media sites sympathetic to jihadists are still running these already debunked claims, and will no doubt attempt to recycle these claims for Operation Arrowhead Ripper (Gee, do the pictures of bodies linked here look familiar to those in the UrukNet photos? They've mysteriously transformed from the bodies of innocent victims of white phosphorus "poison gas" to being victims of napalm or Mark 77 firebombs, even though none were used in Fallujah).

As a side note, white phosphorus has already been used in Baquba...as a screening agent for American forces to move behind and through to avoid enemy fire, which is one of its primary battlefield uses.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:36 AM | Comments (0)

June 19, 2007

The Declining State of Taliban Education

How can they call it a "graduation" when it is obvious that not a single student has taken the final exam?

I demand accountability.

Heh. In the comments at Hot Air, "Those who can, bomb. Those who can't, make videos. "

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:43 AM | Comments (2)

Major Surge Op Underway in Diyala

Up to 10,000 U.S. Troops have mounted an air and ground assault in Baquba:

Up to 10,000 U.S. soldiers backed by armored vehicles and helicopter gunships fought their way into an al Qaeda haven in Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least 22 extremist fighters, the military said.

Operation Arrowhead Ripper, involving Strykers and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, was aimed at dismantling al Qaeda operations around Baquba, a hotbed of unrest north of Baghdad, a military statement said.

Baquba is the capital of Diyala province, a mixed region located north and east of Baghdad and bordering Iran. Military officials believe some al Qaeda in Iraq elements have recently migrated from Baghdad and Anbar province to Diyala.

The 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division kicked off the operation "with a quick-strike nighttime air assault earlier today," the military said Tuesday.

Ground troops joined the attack helicopters in engaging the militants, 22 of whom were killed by daylight, the military said.

Michael Yon is on the ground with U.S. forces, and writes via email:

We just attacked Baqubah (or let's say it's just begun) and I am here. Very, very busy. US forces appear to be meeting objectives so far. There is fighting and casualties on both sides, but mostly I am seeing order so far.

He posts about the opening stages of the operation in Diyala on his latest dispatch:

The doctor has made a decision: Al Qaeda must be excised. That means a large scale attack, and what appears to be the most widespread combat operations since the end of the ground war are now unfolding. A small part of that larger battle will be the Battle for Baquba. For those involved, it will be a very large battle, but in context, it will be only one of numerous similar battles now unfolding. Just as this sentence was written, we began dropping bombs south of Baghdad and our troops are in contact.

Northeast of Baghdad, innocent civilians are being asked to leave Baquba. More than 1,000 AQI fighters are there, with perhaps another thousand adjuncts. Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004. They are ready for us. Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipers—real snipers—have chiseled holes in walls so that they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots. They will shoot for our faces and necks. Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared.

The enemy will try to herd us into their traps, and likely many of us will be killed before it ends. Already, they have been blowing up bridges, apparently to restrict our movements. Entire buildings are rigged with explosives. They have rockets, mortars, and bombs hidden in places they know we are likely to cross, or places we might seek cover. They will use human shields and force people to drive bombs at us. They will use cameras and make it look like we are ravaging the city and that they are defeating us. By the time you read this, we will be inside Baquba, and we will be killing them. No secrets are spilling here.

Read that again, "Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004."

The "Mahogany Ridge" media is tied up in the latest suicide bombing in Baghdad (simply look at the title, lede, and focus of the CNN article cited above as an example), and even those who chose to feature the Baquba assault clearly don't understand the magnitude of the just-joined battle.

Once reality slowly dawns on the media that they are misunderestimating the scope and scale of the assault, steel yourself for a rush of inaccuracies as they seek to get something, anything published, much of it based upon rumor, some of it based upon outright propaganda and lies.

We saw the same during and after Fallujah, when the U.S. military was accused of using napalm on civilians. We don't even have napalm.

The ignorati claimed that white phosphorus was a "chemical weapon," or a "poison gas" and ascribed horrible wounds to it. These claims turned out to be completely untrue.

There may also once again be claims that using .50-caliber machine guns and the cannons of Bradley IFVs and helicopter gunships against terrorist personnel somehow violates the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't.


We'll be hearing and seeing much more from Diyala Province, Baquba proper, and other areas surrounding Baghdad as full-scale surge operations seek to envelop and destroy al Qaeda.

Read smart.

Update: Over at Captains Quarters Ed Morrissey adds some good analysis, and Glenn Reynolds features a longer email from Yon.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:15 AM | Comments (12)

June 15, 2007

Soy Bomb

Considering they supplied arms, training and men against us in wars in Korea and Vietnam in the latter half of the last century, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised at reports that China is arming our enemies today:

New intelligence reveals China is covertly supplying large quantities of small arms and weapons to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban militia in Afghanistan, through Iran.

U.S. government appeals to China to check some of the arms shipments in advance were met with stonewalling by Beijing, which insisted it knew nothing about the shipments and asked for additional intelligence on the transfers. The ploy has been used in the past by China to hide its arms-proliferation activities from the United States, according to U.S. officials with access to the intelligence reports.

Some arms were sent by aircraft directly from Chinese factories to Afghanistan and included large-caliber sniper rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades and components for roadside bombs, as well as other small arms.

The Washington Times reported June 5 that Chinese-made HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles were being used by the Taliban.

According to the officials, the Iranians, in buying the arms, asked Chinese state-run suppliers to expedite the transfers and to remove serial numbers to prevent tracing their origin. China, for its part, offered to transport the weapons in order to prevent the weapons from being interdicted.

The weapons were described as "late-model" arms that have not been seen in the field before and were not left over from Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq.

U.S. Army specialists suspect the weapons were transferred within the past three months.

As bad as it is, that China is working with Iran to supply weapons to our enemies isn't the worst part of the story.

This is.

The Bush administration has been trying to hide or downplay the intelligence reports to protect its pro-business policies toward China, and to continue to claim that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism. U.S. officials have openly criticized Iran for the arms transfers but so far there has been no mention that China is a main supplier.

I want to be very careful and not jump to conclusions here, but it seems that Gertz is making the claim that the Bush administration is trying to cover-up the Chinese sale and transfer of weapons used to target American and allied soldiers at the behest of American companies doing business with the Chinese.

If this claim can be substantiated...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:16 AM | Comments (4)

June 14, 2007

Too Little, Too Late

Via Fox News

President Mahmoud Abbas will dissolve the Palestinian Authority's government Thursday after fighting between rival parties Hamas and Fatah consumed the Gaza Strip and was expected to call for a state of emergency, sources close to Abbas confirmed to FOX News.

Hamas fighters took control from two of the rival Fatah movement's most important security command centers in the Gaza Strip, and witnesses said the victors dragged vanquished gunmen into the street and shot them to death execution-style.

Now he's expected to call a state of emergency?

This is kind of like jotting a note to requisition more lifejackets after you've hit the iceberg and the ship's already gone down.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:06 PM | Comments (0)

The Seditious Senator Reid

Comfortable among his own kind, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has dropped all pretenses of the insincere "...but we support the troops" mantra utterly by the far left, the Politico reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.

This is but the latest example of how Reid, under pressure from liberal activists to do more to stop the war, is going on the attack against President Bush and his military leaders in anticipation of a September showdown to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, according to Democratic senators and aides.

The report of Reid's attacks on key military commanders comes one day after Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to President Bush claiming that the "surge" in Iraq has failed, just weeks after claiming they would wait until September to evaluate the success of the surge, and despite widespread and growing Sunni uprisings against al Qaeda in al Anbar and Diyala provinces, in Baghdad's Sunni-dominated Amiriyah district, and elsewhere.

According to U.S. Code, Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 115 > § 2387 Activities affecting armed forces generally:

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

Marine General Peter Pace is still the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an active duty officer and leader in the United States military. U.S. Army General David Petraeus is the Commanding General of Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I), in command of all U.S Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force military units in Iraq. Petraeus was confirmed to that position confirmed to that position by the Senate in an 81-0 vote less than five months ago on January 26, 2007.

Senator Harry Reid, please explain to us how your apparent utterances calling serving generals "incompetent" while they are engaged in command duties as general officers of the United States during wartime does not amount to interfering with, impairing, or attempting to influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States.

You'll note, Senator Reid, that Chapter 15 of U.S. Code covers "Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities," and I find it very hard for you to argue—though you and your supporters certainly will—that words uttered against the competence of active duty commanding generals during wartime does not amount to an attempt to "interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States." Your offense, coming from your position of United States Senate Majority Leader, is particularly egregious when it is considered that these comments are directed to a group of opinionmakers that claim to hold such sway over Democrat Party politics.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:37 AM | Comments (20)

Gaza Civil War Over Before It Began; Summer Campaign Dominoes Falling Into Place

I wrote on June 5th in a post called The Sliding War that "...the factions in Gaza are almost in, sliding into, on the brink of, and verging on being in a civil war, but they aren't there quite yet... and have been for over a year."

Now, it appears that the Gaza Civil War may be all but over, even before the media could recognize it.

From today's Jerusalem Post:

Hamas fighters overran Fatah-allied Preventive Security headquarters in Gaza City on Thursday, a key target in their battle to control the entire Gaza Strip, witnesses and a security agency official said.

One witness, Jihad Abu Ayad, said Hamas gunmen were bringing Preventive Security men out of the building and executing them in the street.

The headquarters was the last Fatah stronghold in Gaza City, and Fatah appears to be demoralized and all but collapsing.

If Hamas—an Iranian-supported terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel—wrests complete control of Gaza, it is indeed an ominous development.

A member of the Syrian Parliment, Mohammad al Habash, has already told al Jazeera that Syria is preparing for a summer war against Israel, and Hezbollah's deputy secretary Sheikh Naim Kassem has already stated that Hezbollah—rearmed by Iran and Syria after last year's battle with Israel in Lebanon—is also preparing for another summer "adventure" with Israel as well.

A map of the region shows why these claims are of such concern.

Israel_Map

If the ominous rumblings by Syria and Hezbollah of a summer campaign against Israel are credible, then most if not all of northern Israel could be a potential battleground. If Hamas can consolidate power in Gaza, then they have the possibility of opening a weaker, but still lethal second front in the event of a summer war, diverting or dividing Israeli ground forces.

I strongly doubt that even a combined Syrian, Hamas, and Hezbollah offensive would have any strong chance of success, and hope that whatever their endgame strategy is, they realize that as well.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:45 AM | Comments (5)

June 13, 2007

Acute Politics Comes Home

Teflon Don of Acute Politics is back in the world:

After another long stretch in the plane, we landed in Dallas. The people in Dallas are great- my first glimpse of America included a fire truck spraying an arc of water over the plane to welcome us home. Inside, the terminal was almost bare, but there was a still a small crowd that went to the airport at 6am to greet us. A quick run through immigrations and customs put us back in the world- a place where we are much less soldiers, and much more kids trying to make our cell phones work.

My group flew standby, trying to get home just a few hours quicker. Everywhere we went, we had a few people come up and thank us. In my experience, most of those that did had a relative or friend in the military. Most people payed no more attention to us than to anyone anyone else. No one was rude.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:58 PM | Comments (0)

June 12, 2007

Jeep Jihadi Apologizes, Requests Life... in California

His defense attorney claims he has "a severe mental illness."

The man accused of striking nine people when he drove a vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last year has apologized in a letter sent to the court.

In the letter dated May 20 and sent to Orange County Superior Court, Mohammed Taheri-azar said he is "very sorry for the crimes which I committed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on March 3, 2006. I sincerely regret what I did on that day. Please release me from state custody so that I may pursue my goal of living a productive life in California."

Taheri-azar has pleaded not guilty to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and nine counts of felonious assault.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:11 AM | Comments (9)

Still Just Factional Fighting

Hamas is threatening to overrun Fatah positions in Gaza, one day after attacking the home of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and killing the top Fatah official in northern Gaza, Jamal al-Jediyan.

According to Global Security's handy dandy Civil War Checklist, there are five critieria for a civil war:

civil war: A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.

Does each faction control territory? Check.

Does Gaza have a functioning government? Check.

Do Fatah and Hamas enjoy some foreign recognition? Check.

Do they have identifiable armed forces? Check.

Do they engage in major military operations Check, and with two attacks directed against Haniya in two days and the new threat issued by Hamas against Fatah, the violence is getting more pronounced each day.

At some point, Rueters, AFP, the Assocaited Press, and other news organizations should begin identifying this clear civil war for what it is.

That day, however, is not today.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:47 AM | Comments (0)

June 11, 2007

Is Hyperventilating a Team Sport?

If so, I think this guy is shooting for MVP:

Gov. Huckabee, who wants to be President, seems to have no problem with the gulag known as Gitmo. In fact, he says that prisoners would rather be in Gitmo then in the prisons right here in the USA...

[snip]

If Gitmo is better then state prisons in the USA, then we need to shut down every prison in the United States. Gitmo is a gulag, plain and simple. People there are being tortured, and some are dying. There are constant hunger strikes, and no international human rights groups are allowed to monitor the situation down there.

I covered this ground almost two years ago.

There are indeed prisons in America far worse than Guantanamo Bay, and to label the detention facility there a "gulag" is an abject display of ignorance, showing just how little the excitable author knows about real Soviet gulags, where millions of prisoners were worked, starved, and tortured to death.

Four prisoners have commited suicide at Guantanamo, since 2002, less than one a year, while 400 prisoners in American prisons commit suicide each year.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:54 PM | Comments (41)

Shaped Charge Captured in Afghanistan

They don't say "EFP" or "explosively-formed penetrator," but based upon how the story is composed and allusions to Iraq, it seems like that is what they are probably talking about here.

A hi-tech bomb, similar to the ones used by militants in Iraq, has been found in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

Afghan intelligence sources say the bomb can penetrate heavily armoured vehicles and was set up by a road to target a high-level government convoy.

There is increasing evidence that sophisticated explosives technology is crossing into Afghanistan from Iraq.

Police and government officials say they believe Iran is the source of these so-called "shaped charges".

'Shaped charges'

They have been used widely in Iraq and now it seems they are on the streets of Afghanistan.

These "shaped charges" are designed to explode in a specific direction, to concentrate the force into one point, and their discovery in Kabul is a worrying development for security forces.

To be fair, EFPs are just one kind of shaped charge, and the device found in Kabul may not be an EFP. It is worrisome that the media so quickly tied this device to Iran, and I'd like to know how they made that determination. I suspect that EOD specialists noted characteristics of this device that mimic those devices captured in Iraq to make that determination, but don't know for certain.

Needless to say, it bears watching to see if more charges thought to be of Iranian origin show up in Afghanistan, which could indicate that Iran is attempting to spread its influence eastward.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:27 AM | Comments (2)

Information Underload

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's comments yesterday on Face the Nation have drawn him quite a bit of attention:

"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers...if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them...He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

"They can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," he said. "We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."

People from the right and left have been quick to issue judgement on his pronouncement.

On National Review Online, Michael Ledeen states he thinks Lieberman should be our new Secretary of State because of this comments, while a whole host of liberal blogs have taken the opportunity to use these words against the former Democrat (now Independent) Senator, labeling him "a tool," a "neocon," a "warmonger," and far worse.

Sadly, while both the right and left have quickly jumped on their respective and predictable bandwagons to either support the Senator or condemn Lieberman’s comments, I've read precious little issued forth in concern for the American military forces ostensibly being attacked with Iranian weapons, or by militiamen that are rumored to be trained at facilities within Iran.

Shouldn't we be debating whether or not to attack Iran based upon the threats to American servicemen? This simply is not a conversation being had.

It doesn't seem that either side wants to ask the hard questions that must be asked.

We've heard time and again that Iran is shipping precision-made EFPs (Explosively-Formed Penetrators) into Iraq to militias targeting American armored vehicles. We've heard from the military that the homemade EFPs manufactured in Iraq are not made with enough precision to perform properly against American armor, and that only those EFPs made professionally in Iran can cut through the armor of even our main battle tanks.

Shouldn't we in the blogosphere be asking for details, asking the military to completely explain, in excruciating detail, the technical characteristics of these EFPs that identify them as being Iranian in origin? Shouldn't we be asking for this conclusive proof that the Iranian government must be behind the manufacture of such weapons?

We've heard time and again that other Iranian ordnance, from mortar shells to artillery rounds to sniper rifles to surface-to-air missiles, has been captured in Iraq. Shouldn't we be asking characteristics identify these weapons as exclusively Iranian in origin, and then ask if they could be filtering into Iraq in any other way than with the assistance of the Iranian government?

We've heard time and again that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Qods Force is actively engaged in training and equipping militias in Iraq; shouldn't we be pushing for hard evidence of such a connection, and debating whether or not the evidence of such connections is indeed an act of war worthy of a political, economic, or military response?

What precisely is Senator Lieberman asking for? Is he asking for American special operations units to insert into Iran to capture evidence from suspected EFP manufacturing centers? Is he asking for American air assets to attack and destroy the suspected terrorist training facilities at Imam Ali base near Khorram Abad, or for strikes on Revolutionary Guard bases, training facilities, or leadership targets?

We should be asking these questions, but it seems too many in the blogosphere are siloed into their positions, firmly for or against a strike against Iran based not on the threat posed to American, British, and Iraqi forces, but based upon their own domestic political objectives and agendas.

The questions we should be asking should revolve around the mortal threat Iranian weapons and training either do or do not pose to our troops and that of our allies. We should be asking for hard evidence that such weapons and training are being provided by the Iranian regime. We should be pushing the military, the media, and our leaders to provide us as much information as possible, so that we can intelligently discuss whether or not the Iranian government is either directing or allowing actions against our forces in the region, and what an appropriate response to such a threat would be.

But we aren't doing that in the blogosphere, or in the media.

We've chosen our positions, and have determined our support or opposition to actions against Iran based upon very little but our own preconceived notions and political ideologies, and with little regard to the threat posed to our national security, the security of Iraq, and the security of our troops who may be facing Iranian weapons and Iranian-trained militiamen and insurgents.

Should we consider attacking Iranian personnel and facilities for their involvement in Iraq? I, for one, don't have enough information yet to make a judgement for or against such a strike.

I wish my fellow bloggers and members of the media would pressure our politicians and the military to produce the answers we require to develop an informed opinion, though apparently, many don't feel that being informed is necessary at all.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:30 AM | Comments (3)

June 08, 2007

More Bloodshed on The Way In Iraq

JD Johannes makes some predictions about the "surge" in Iraq leading to a wider war before peace is achieved.

I don't think he's probably too far off the mark.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)

June 07, 2007

Is a Summer Proxy War Brewing To Protect Iranian Nukes?

And so the build-up begins:

Israeli intelligence officials have been warning for weeks that Syria is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-tank weapons, antiaircraft rockets, and other missiles, and bolstering its presence along the Israeli border.

Mohammad al Habash, a Syrian parliament member, meanwhile, told the Al Jazeera satellite channel this week that his country was actively preparing for war with Israel, which he said he expected to break out this summer.

I'd suggest taking that bit of news in this context:

A senior member of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government suggested that his country is running out of patience with a US-backed diplomatic overture to head off Iran's nuclear ambitions, The Associated Press (AP) reported.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already threatened the U.N. Security Council after threatening the destruction of Israel in the near future just days ago.

We also know that in the wake of last summer's battle in Lebanon that Syria and Iran moved rapidly to rearm the stockpiles of their Hezbollah proxies with over 20,000 short-range missiles and a significant quantity of small arms and ammunition.

According to Defense Update, Hezbollah's deputy secretary Sheikh Naim Kassem intoned that the terror group was preparing for another "adventure" with Israel this summer, and has been receiving anti-aircraft missiles and training directly from Islamic Revolutionary Guards at Iran's Imam Ali base in Tehran.

It seems that we are witnessing is a deliberate and calculated build-up of forces by Syria and Hezbollah for a probable summer campaign against Israel, an attempt likely orchestrated by Iran.

What would be the goal of such a campaign?

Any Israeli response to a summer war would necessarily involve the use of the IDF's strike fighters to hit enemy armor, troop concentrations, or rocket firing areas that are beyond the range of Israeli artillery.

With the recent build-up in training and equipment for both Hezbollah and Syrian anti-aircraft units, it seems possible that the goal of a summer war would be to draw Israel aircraft into an engagement so that they could be ambushed and shot down.

If Syrian and Hezbollah forces could draw Israel aircraft into range, volleys of anti-aircraft missiles could potentially bring down some of Israel's premier strike aircraft and pilots, including the long-range strike fighters that have been training for a possible Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

If Israel loses a significant number of pilots and aircraft (Israel only has 25 F-15I "Ra'am" fighters, thought to be their preferred method of delivering "bunkerbuster" bombs against hardened Iranian facilities), then the probability of success of any Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities decreases.

The coming summer war may be designed for the sole purpose of buying the Iranian program the time it needs to come to fruition and produce a nuclear warhead.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:13 AM | Comments (7)

June 06, 2007

Blotter Claims Iran Caught Red-Handed, Ignorant Critics Deny Reality of Sunni/Shia Terror Relationships

Here's the Blotter story, which I'll take with a Prudential rock-sized grain of salt, as I've personally caught Brian Ross being dead wrong on the facts before.

That said, I'm already sick and tired of the smugly ignorant (check out the Blotter's comment thread as well) who repeat the delusion that Iranian Shias will not work with or support Iraqi insurgents, Afghan Taliban, or al Qaeda terrorists, merely because these groups are Sunni.

I hate to break this fabrication with a dose of reality, but does anyone remember who Iran's primary ally is? Sunni Baathist Syria. Iran has also long supported Sunni terrorist groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, just to name two more.

Iran has a long and concrete history of allying with Baathist Syria and Sunni terrorist groups to support their foreign policy goals.

It's time to put this self-serving bit of "common sense" to bed as the abject ignorance it actually is.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:13 PM | Comments (28)

Ahmadinejad Claims Iran's Nuclear Drive Can't be Stopped

Nuclear chicken, anyone?

Iran's nuclear program cannot be stopped, and any Western attempt to force a halt to uranium enrichment would be like playing "with the lion's tail," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday.

In Berlin, Germany's foreign minister reported no progress in talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator ahead of the Group of Eight summit. And with the U.N. Security Council preparing to debate a third set of sanctions for Tehran's refusal to suspend enrichment, Britain raised the possibility of adding curbs on oil and gas investment to the limited measures against individuals and companies involved in Iran's nuclear and weapons programs.

"We advise them to give up stubbornness and childish games," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "Some say Iran is like a lion. It's seated quietly in a corner. We advise them not to play with the lion's tail."

Added Ahmadinejad: "It is too late to stop the progress of Iran."

In Washington, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack responded: "It isn't."

McCormack is of course referring to diplomatic efforts by the United States and other nations in the international community to coax Iran into giving up their suspected nuclear weapons program.

Like any nuclear weapons program, the Iranian nuclear weapons program must have multiple minimum components, those being the ability to acquire raw uranium ore, the ability and facilities to process and enrich the uranium to "weapons grade," the ability to develop a warhead, and the ability to deliver a warhead.

Iran has as many as 10 functioning uranium mines according to GlobalSecurity.Org, so acquiring the raw uranium ore has never been an issue. Iran also has at least 11 known facilities to process and enrich their raw ores, with Natanz and Bushehr perhaps being the most well known. Iran is also developing a parallel plutonium-based program out of Arak.

As for the warheads, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency (IAEA) stated that they were aware that Iran has acquired documents and drawings on the black market, and there has been speculation that Iran may have acquired dual-use components from western countries in the 1990s, as well as warhead technology from North Korea.

Iran is said to have developed long-range missiles such as the claimed Fajr-3 with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) capability typically used only with nuclear warheads, and the proven Shahab-3, which can carry a singe conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear warhead.

Based upon this information, it seems Iran has the technical capability to build a viable nuclear weapons threat. Based upon the continued threats and rhetoric issued from Iran through President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran also has the political will and strategic goal of becoming a nuclear power.

Western nations that feel threatened by Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons essentially have three options:

  • Let Iran continue to develop their nuclear program and hope they are not developing a nuclear weapons program as well;
  • Attempt to convince Iran not to develop a nuclear through political and economic pressures and incentives;
  • Take covert and overt intelligence and military operations to undermine or remove Iran's nuclear capabilities.

We are well past the point where any reasonable nation can assume that Iran is not attempting to develop a nuclear weapons program. They have been caught with warhead plans by U.N. inspectors, and have developed nuclear-capable delivery systems.

The present efforts are primarily diplomatic and economic in nature, hoping to force Iran to the bargaining table, but as Ahmadinejad's most recent threats and rhetoric attest, they have no intention of slowing nuclear development. If they cannot be persuaded to stop their nuclear program through peaceable means, that leaves only the use of intelligence and military forces.

There has been some speculation and a few indications that covert efforts are already underway, some mirroring efforts used against the Soviet Union in the Cold War, such as providing flawed plans through double agents and spies, and at least one top Iranian nuclear scientist has died within the past year.

These covert efforts, however, can at best slow the Iranian nuclear program. There is no way to be sure that any compromised systems will go undiscovered and uncorrected, and the accumulated knowledge is difficult to eradicate with the death of a few occasional scientists, even if they are prominent.

Sadly, with continued defiance by Iran's government and their apparent belief that nuclear capability is in their nation's best interests, a military solution may yet prove that Iran's nuclear drive can indeed be stopped through force of arms.

iaf_air

The IAF Air Force has 25 F-15I "Ra'am" and 102 F-16I "Sufa" long-range strike fighters with the capability of hitting hardened targets with "bunker-buster" bombs in Iran without refueling. If they can arrange in-air refueling, there are no potential targets in Iran out of range.

There seems to be a common misconception that our ground combat in Iraq precludes a strike on Iran if one is warranted, but that supposition has no basis at all in reality. The U.S. assets available for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities are literally too numerous to name. While the U.S. military's ground forces are heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. Air Force and Naval units are virtually free for involvement.

At least three U.S. carrier strike groups carrying more than 240 aircraft are thought to be within range of Iran, and an unknown number of submarine and surface fleet vessels armed with cruise missiles are within range of Iran or can be relatively stealthily deployed to the region.

With mid-air refueling capabilities, the U.S. Air Force fleet of B-1B, B-2, and B-52 bombers and the U.S. strike fighter fleet of F15s, F-16s, and F-117 and F-22 stealth fighters can bring to bear literally thousands of precision-guided bombs if needed in single or multiple sorties.

Should it be determined that the military strike is warranted, precedent indicates that President Bush does not need Congressional approval for such a strike. All U.S. Presidents of the past three decades (yes, even Jimmy Carter) have launched military operations without needing or seeking congressional approval, from Carter's botched attempt to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran, to Reagan's strikes on Libya and Grenada, to Bush 41's invasion of Panama, and Clinton's strikes on Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Sudan.

There is some debate over whether such air strikes by U.S. and Israeli aircraft could destroy or significantly damage Iran's nuclear capability. Even with the recent purchase of Soviet anti-aircraft missile systems, Iran's anti-aircraft capability is second-rate, their aging and obsolete Air Force would probably never get off the ground, so their ability to successfully oppose such a strike through is very unlikely.

I would posit that both the Israeli and the U.S. military have munitions capable of destroying or severely damaging Iranian nuclear sites (even hardened underground bunkers), if those sites can be accurately identified. The attacks would only be likely to fail if the targets cannot accurately be identified and targeted.

The obvious downside of any attack by Israel or the United States upon Iranian nuclear facilities is the very real possibility, if not probability, of an Iranian counterattack by both conventional and unconventional forces.

Iran would certainly target U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in the wake of any attack on Iran, and may also possibly target civilian shipping as well. Some experts anticipate that Iran may also attempt to invade southern Iraq in retaliation. If such an attack takes place, out-gunned and out-manned British forces are severely under threat, and there is a distinct possibility that units could be overrun before coalition airpower annihilated Iranian conventional forces. Iran may also fire missiles at U.S. bases and Iraqi cities. Shia militias loyal to Iran would be directed to rise up against U.S. forces in Iraq, and the resulting battles would potentially be very bloody. Several dozen to several hundred U.S. soldiers could become fatalities, and no doubt thousands of Shia militiamen and civilians would probably perish on the other side.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups would probably fire barrages of rockets into Israeli civilian populations, and there is some concern--I'm not sure how serious to take these--that Syria would attack and attempt to retake the Goal Heights, with the predictable disastrous results to Syrian forces.

There is also a credible threat of Hezbollah-directed terrorist attacks again U.S. interests worldwide and possibly in the United States as a result.

Make no mistake: Iran has the capability to hit back in retaliation after their nuclear facilities are struck, and depending on how these attacks are executed in Iraq, Israel, the united States and elsewhere, casualties could be significant.

What the U.S government, the Israeli's, and perhaps other western and Middle Eastern powers have to take into account is whether or not the threatened Iranian retaliation is a greater threat that the Iranian nuclear program. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and their continuous threats are sincere and not just rhetoric, then quite literally, millions of lives are at risk. The result of attempting to use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear program could result in the deaths of thousands. While both options could be avoided by an internal revolt in Iran or a sudden change of course by their government, I fear this bloody drama will be played out by January of 2008, one way, or the other.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:04 AM | Comments (14)

June 05, 2007

The War Lovers

Experts continue to state that anti-war politicians will spill more blood, not less, in the Middle East.

warlovers

For months, professional journalists, combat soldiers, defense experts, intelligence analysts, regional governments, and bloggers have been warning about the consequences of the disastrous retreat from Iraqi being orchestrated by the radicalized left wing of the Democratic Party.

Writing in WSJ's OpinionJournal today, Dan Senor ties it all together, showing through the words of experts that the precipitous headlong retreat favored by so many Democrats will only result in American combat forces returning to the region in greater numbers and facing a far more bloody and destabilized Middle East dubbed "Iraq Plus."

Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."

And here is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of the what he sees as the administration's naive and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."

A number of Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors also opposed the war as well as the U.S. push for liberalizing the region's authoritarian governments. Yet they now backchannel the same two priorities to Washington: Do not let Iran acquire nukes, and do not withdraw from Iraq.

A senior Gulf Cooperation Council official told me that "If America leaves Iraq, America will have to return. Soon. It will not be a clean break. It will not be a permanent goodbye. And by the time America returns, we will have all been drawn in. America will have to stabilize more than just Iraq. The warfare will have spread to other countries, governments will be overthrown. America's military is barely holding on in Iraq today. How will it stabilize 'Iraq Plus'?" (Iraq Plus is the term that some leaders in Arab capitals use to describe the region following a U.S. withdrawal.)

Among the people on Iraqi soil cited by Senor is NY Times Bureau Chief John Burns, who has made comments equating an American pullout with the onset of a regional conflict and violence without limits.


CNN's Michael Ware and Kyra Phillips have echoed similar sentiments, saying a U.S. pullout "would be a disaster."

U.S. secretary of Defense Robert Gates is even more blunt:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday warned that limiting troops' activities in Iraq and withdrawing from Baghdad could lead to "ethnic cleansing" in the capital and elsewhere in the country.

Gates' comment followed a proposal from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to end most spending on the Iraq war in 2008, limiting it to targeted operations against al Qaeda, training for Iraqi troops and U.S. force protection.

"One real possibility is if we abandon some of these areas and withdraw into the countryside or whatever to do these targeted missions that you could have a fairly significant ethnic cleansing inside Baghdad and in Iraq more broadly," Gates said.

The general premises of anti-war groups is that they wants a U.S. military pullout in Iraq seem based upon the following primary arguments:

  • There were no WMDs/the reasons for the War were a lie (the playground mentality "I want a 'do-over'" argument).
  • The U.S. military is causing tremendous civilian casualties in Iraq (the "remove the babykillers and the bloodshed will stop" argument).
  • Leaving American troops in Iraq without a firm withdrawal date with only allow the various factions to continue fighting without coming to a political solution (the "they're all savages until we disappear and they’ll be forced to negotiate with each other" argument).
  • The various Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions are going to slaughter each other anyway, so why place American troops in the middle where they can be killed as well (the "they're all savages, let them die/kill each other" argument)

Obviously, there are variations of those major themes, but those are their general arguments.

The common failure of all of these arguments is the purposeful refusal to recognize what many (if not most) experts think will happen in the wake of the arbitrary and precipitous U.S. withdrawal, which are those predictions of a much wider regional war, a phenomenal increase in civilian casualties, the possible attempted genocide of some factions, and the re-entry of the U.S. military into the same region under far worse conditions and the threat of far greater casualties.

Anti-war politicians claim that they want to stop the war in Iraq, but the policies to which they subscribe are akin to throwing water on a grease fire. They would spread the flames of war, and create far more deaths.

Anti-war? No, it is a far wider war they will cause.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:26 PM | Comments (11)

The Sliding War

According to professional media organizations and politicians, this is only factional fighting:

Hamas and Fatah forces fought a major gun battle on Tuesday in the Gaza Strip near the Karni commercial crossing, the most serious flare-up in factional fighting in two weeks.

An officer with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Presidential Guard said a "large number" of Hamas fighters attacked a key Presidential Guard position near the crossing, wounding at least one guard member.

The Presidential Guard officer said the Hamas fighters attempted to infiltrate the position but were pushed back by the Presidential Guard, a Fatah-dominated force which receives U.S. backing.

Hamas, which leads a Palestinian unity government with Abbas's Fatah faction, confirmed the nearly three-hour-long gun battle near Karni but said the Presidential Guard initiated the exchange.

According to Global Security, there are five recognized criteria for a civil war:

civil war: A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.
  1. Both Hamas and Fatah control territory.
  2. Both Hamas and Fatah have their own political organizations and function (dysfunction) as part of a recognized government.
  3. both enjoy some foreign recognition via support from governments such as ours (Fatah) and Iran (Hamas).
  4. both have identifiable and mostly uniformed armed forces.
  5. both have engaged and continue to engage in major military operations.

By this definition (and others), the Palestinian Civil War in Gaza is clearly underway, and has been for some time.

A supermajority of the world media organizations refuse to recognize this conflict as the civil war that it is.

Instead, we consistently see accounts that the factions in Gaza are almost in, sliding into, on the brink of, and verging on being in a civil war, but they aren't there quite yet... and have been for over a year.

A few examples:

Abbas acts to halt slide into civil war in Gaza. The U.K. Guardian, May 22, 2006.

Political Violence in Gaza Sparks Fears of Civil War. NPR May 24, 2006.

Gaza sliding into civil war. The U.K. Guardian, October 11, 2006.

Fighting in Gaza Sparks Fears of Civil War. NPR December 17, 2006.

Gaza on brink of civil war as cleric is killed. The U.K. Telegraph, January 8, 2007.

Gaza on brink of civil war. Canada.com, January 29, 2007.

The march toward civil war. The Boston Globe via the International Herald Tribune, February 12, 2007.

Gaza on brink of civil war. The (U.K.?) Times via the Australian, May 17, 2007.

A last chance to avert civil war in Palestine. The U.K. Independent, June 5, 2007.

Abbas: Palestinians verging on civil war. Boston.com, June 5, 2007.

The war in Iraq is widely described in the world's professional media organizations as a "civil war," even though it clearly fails to satisfy the five criteria noted for international recognition as cited by Global Security above, having no formal armies, no functioning governments, nor major battles, instead revolving around kidnappings, bombing, and other random violence.

The Gaza Civil War, on the other hand, satisfies all five criteria for a civil war, and has met these criteria for roughly a year.

Why does the media refuse to recognize the conflict between Hamas and Fatah for the civil war that it is?

I have no easy answers for that question, but is a question that deserves an answer.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (25)

May 31, 2007

Saint Andie isn't calling the Bush Administration Hitler...

...because the phrase War Criminals and Nazis is much more fitting.

Let's begin at the end of Andie "Patron Saint of the Man Pooter" Sullivan's article.

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.
See he's not calling them Hitler, because, you know Hitler was doing a world a favor by getting rid of those filthy Joos, its the Nazi Party's misguided questioning techniques that Andie wants you to think of when you think of Bush and his Henchmen.

Of course calls for the death of the Bush Administration is nothing new from the party of Love, Peace and Patriotism. If a few thousand more Americans have to die while they're at work in their offices, just so we can ensure the Freedom Fighters are comfortable in their cells, so be it and who the hell are you to question their Patriotism, you nazi bastard.

The part of the document Andie's hoping you didn't read or given the typical Neocon's lack of reading comprehension hoping you wouldn't understand:

1. The sharpened interrogation may only be applied if, on the strength of the preliminary interrogation, it has been ascertained that the prisoner can give information about facts, connections or plans hostile to the state or legal system, but does not want to reveal his knowledge and the latter cannot be obtained by way of inquiries.
2. Under this circumstance, the sharpened interrogation may be applied only against Communists, Marxists, members of the Bible-researcher sect, saboteurs, terrorists, members of the resistance movement,...
3. The sharpened interrogation may not be applied in order to induce confessions about a prisoner's own criminal acts...

Andie would hope you'd skip the part about only applying "sharpened interrogation" to terrorists who "it has been ascertained that the prisoner can give information about facts, connections or plans hostile to the state or legal system, but does not want to reveal his knowledge and the latter cannot be obtained by way of inquiries" and follow along in his inference that Bush, his Administration and those questioning terrorists are war criminals.

Personally, I place the value of human life above my concerns of safety for a terrorist. But maybe I'm being unrealistic and we should just follow Saint Andie's lead and push for a kinder gentler form of questioning:


I guess Pablo the bikini-clad-pool-boy should question Saint Andie.

Posted by phin at 10:55 AM | Comments (30)

May 29, 2007

Hummelgate, a food shortage in Iraq?

Alternatively Titled: How can Bobby Flay challenge troops to a throwdown in the Mojave Desert when the US Military can't get civilians in Iraq the ingredients they need to "toss salad". Brevity is key, and all that.

While you were lounging around sipping mojitos and dreaming of replacing the Rosie "Patron Saint of Truther Conspiracy Theorists" O'Donnell on the view ace was all over the fake, but real, but accurate food shortage memo reported by our friends and neighbors at the WaPo. The Flopped Aced one has a pretty good synopsis of the entire escapade.

Being the good little storm troopers that we are we're wondering why the ever military friendly main stream media reporters aren't receiving their daily allotments of syrup or jelly. Which, if you're a deviant and I know you probably are, you'd know is critical for tossing salad (a search not safe for work, easily sickened or pure of heart, but if you're kinky go for it).

There really are lots of questions that go unanswered here.

  • What type of knucklehead uses Flappy the flag waving wonder eagle instead of the official emblem / seal / logo of the US Embassy in Iraq.
  • Who put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp? Who put the ram in the ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong? Who put the bop in the bop sh-bop sh-bop?
  • Why did Parvaz Khan a Human Resources Officer create a PDF of the "document"?
  • Is Gleen Ellers Thomas Francis Nancy Greenwald behind this whole shenanigan? He was quoted by congress or the senate or something

I guess it is kind of hard to find a decent US Embassy Logo to use, I mean it was on the second page google's image search.

On the upside we've got Romentum and if anybody will get to the truth behind this whole fire melting steel thingy Ron Paul will and damn it, he'll get put an end to this illegal war we're waging, pronto.

This message was approved by Flappy the salad tossing wonder eagle.

He likes syrup.

And don't blame me or Flappy if you're disturbed after googling "toss my salad", you were warned.

In desperate woman news. It looks like Jessica Simpson and that no talent hack John Mayer are done, over, fineto. If you're not familiar with John Mayer, he's the guy that sang a song about my body being a wonderland. If you're not familiar with Jessica Simpson:


She used to be perfect.

For those of you upset by the lack of "hard-hitting" "serious" reporting around here, well, I'll start as soon as the WaPo and ABC do. Which means you'll all be welcoming CY's return week's wend.

Posted by phin at 01:16 PM | Comments (1)

May 25, 2007

Iranian EFP Proxy Captured In Sadr City

Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?

US and Iraqi forces captured an Iraqi militant accused of "acting as a proxy for an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer" on Friday after a fierce gunbattle, the military said.

The joint snatch squad called in an air strike after coming under fire during a raid on the hideout of an alleged weapons smuggling gang in the notorious Sadr City district, a Shiite militia bastion in east Baghdad.

[snip]

EFPs are roadside bombs designed to fire a chunk of molten metal through the toughest armour plating. The United States accuses Tehran of smuggling hundreds of the devices to Iraq, where they have killed scores of US troops.

"Intelligence reports indicate the individual targeted is suspected of having direct ties to the leader of the EFP network as well as acting as a proxy for an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer," the statement said.

American forces previously captured a suspect in the Iranian EFP smuggling network in late March. I wonder how much longer it will be until we capture known Iranian Quds Force or Revolutionary Guard Corps officers... other than the ones we've already captured, of course.

The Iranian EFPs are the most deadly threat to U.S. heavy vehicles; indigenously-made Iraqi EFPs consistently fail against U.S. armor.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:38 AM | Comments (0)

May 24, 2007

Funk You

Joe Klein, Keith Olbermann, Brian Ross, etc., I think this is directed at you:

"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.

"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also).

[snip]

"Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers."

That refrain should be familiar to you by now, as similar thoughts are echoed across the blogosphere and in conversations with active-duty American servicemen almost universally.

But Funk isn't done. He doesn't leave out those of you who say you "support the troops, but not the war."

"We're treading water," the Ames man told the people closest to him. "We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.

Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq."

Feel ashamed yet? Probably not. After all, he's just one soldier, and he's no Jesse MacBeth.

(H/T Blackfive)

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:52 PM | Comments (12)

Bush's Wars are Safer For the Military that Clinton's Peace?

It sure sounds odd but that is what the numbers seem to show in regard to military fatalities during the current and most recent administrations.

I'd be interested in countering arguments, should anyone feel like making them, though the figures provided may make a certain amount of sense in one context.

Anecdotally speaking, I recall that the various sports teams at my high school seemed to take more injuries in scrimmages than in games. Coaches often attributed such injuries to a lack of focus and less than full intensity on the part of the injured when other athletes were scrimmaging at "game speed."

Could it be that like athletes, soldiers take their "games"--real combat--more seriously than they do their practices, and are therefore perhaps more prone towards dangerous mistakes during peacetime drills and exercises than in combat?

David Petraeus, our commanding general in Iraq, could be a microcosm of these phenomena in his own right. Never wounded in war, he was shot in the chest in 1991 during a training exercise when a soldier tripped and his weapon discharged, nearly costing Petraeus his life.

I’ve got no easy answers here, and would love to get your opinions in the comments.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:54 AM | Comments (20)

May 22, 2007

Also, The Sun Came Up Today

Allegations in today's Guardian that Iran may be supporting Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda in Iraq in anti-surge operations may come as a shock to some, but I can't imagine why:

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.

"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

Iran is not "secretly forging ties" with al Qaeda; they've had them all along, possibly as far back as the 1996 Khobar Towers attack. al Qaeda operatives, including the 9/11 plotters have long used Iran as a gateway to Afghanistan, and al Qaeda operatives have lived in Iran since the fall of the Taliban.

That Iran would use "their" al Qaeda to hook up with al Qaeda operatives and other Sunni insurgents in Iraq to pursue their shared goal of forcing the United States out of Iraq is not only unsurprising, it is tediously predictable.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM | Comments (8)

May 21, 2007

Progress?

Jules Crittenden takes a look behind the headlines to note that the intensive search operations for our missing soldiers in Iraq have led to a dramatic decease in al Qaeda activity in the so-called "Triangle of Death." He's got a dozen links, al worth reading.

Meanwhile, my buddy Michael Yon is in al Anbar, once al Qaeda's base of operations and the heart of the Sunni insurgency, and is bored out of his mind. This is the second time he's mentioned a lack of action there (here's the first) in as many days. He could get used to this. I think we all could, American and Iraqi alike.

Other parts of Iraq were not as quiet.

Sheikh Azhar al-Dulaymi, the Iranian-trained mastermind of the Karbala raid that killed five American soldiers killed in late January, was killed in Sadr City by U.S. forces.

Elsewhere in Iraq, seven U.S. soldiers were killed over the weekend, along with dozens of Iraqi civilians. Eight insurgents were killed and almost three dozen more were captured in a series of raids on Karmah, south of Baghdad.

Elsewhere in the War on Terror, Lebanese Army units fought intense battles with an al Qaeda-aligned group outside Tripoli. Speculation is that the group is backed by Syrian military intelligence at the behest of Syrian dictator Bashir Assad. The group is apparently led by Shaker al-Absi, a Syrian Air Force veteran that is thought to have fought against U.S. forces in Iraq and who is believed to have had links to al Qaeda in Iraq's former leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to a Washington Post report, on the terrorists killed, Saddam El-Hajdib , was a suspect in a failed train bombing in Germany.

Meanwhile, the McCain-Kennedy Illegal Alien Exploitation and Terrorist Proliferation Bill is under debate in the U.S. Senate. The bill would offer official documentation to illegal aliens without being able to verify who they actually are or where they come from, and would allow terrorists like the three illegal alien brothers who crossed over the Mexican border at Brownsville and were recently arrested plotting a terrorist attack on Fort Dix to continue to penetrate this country, now with the added bonus of being able to get legal status.

McCain and Republicans in the House and Senate want cheap labor at indentured servitude prices, while Democrats, knowing that illegals tend to break Democrat roughly 5:1 because of the Marxist/socialist politics of their home nations, hope to use illegals to establish an overwhelming permanent Democratic majority.

In the end, we're looking at a Congress that is willing to pass a law that would enable Osama bin Laden himself to get legal status here in the United States.

That is not a comment I'm making up; it comes directly from Mike Cutler, a 30-year veteran of the U.S. Immigration Service, who thinks the Senate bill should be referred to as the Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007.

I hate Mondays.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:37 AM | Comments (3)

A Few Words on Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Etc.

I don't agree with the threats, but I certainly share the frustrations.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:07 AM | Comments (5)

May 18, 2007

Palestinian Plot to Assassinate Olmert Foiled

The accused plotter worked for Doctors Without Borders. I'm guessing "first do no harm" principle of Doctors without Borders slipped by him in orientation.

The Israeli intelligence services say they have foiled a plot to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other senior Israeli political figures. Details of the story were released yesterday after Israeli authorities lifted a media blackout.

The plot allegedly centered on Mazab Bashir, a 25-year-old Palestinian from Gaza who worked for the international medical relief organization Doctors Without Borders. According to the Israelis, Bashir was arrested in Jerusalem while he was gathering intelligence for future terrorist attacks.

It is not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to be granted travel permits by the Israeli security agencies if they work for recognized nongovernmental organizations. Bashir held such a permit, which allowed him to travel regularly from the Gaza Strip to Jerusalem, officials said.

The indictment said Bashir made several surveillance tours of the area surrounding Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Jerusalem residence but decided that the building was too well protected. Working with the Palestinian militant group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, he allegedly received hand to hand combat training and used the Internet to find alternative Israeli personalities to target.

Forbes was able to provide details of the alternative target list:

Once he deemed that the assassination of the prime minister was impossible, Bashir began collecting information on other top Israeli politicians, including Cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman, deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh and Labor Party lawmaker Ophir Pines-Paz.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM | Comments (1)

May 16, 2007

The Storm Builds

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

That will be the take-away for most on this Telegraph article published today, and while that is an extreme bastardization of what former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolten actually said--he actually advocated an escalating course of significant economic sanctions, regime change, and the use of force only if nothing else works--the headline of "We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb" does accurately describe what appears at this point to be the probable end game.

Melanie Phillips does an admirable job of almost describing the stakes:

The choice is not between a negotiated peace with Iran and a war with appalling risks. It is a choice between a war with appalling risks and an Iran that will hold the world to nuclear ransom, having destroyed Israel as a throat-clearing exercise. It is a choice between war with Iran, and war with a nuclear Iran; war on our terms, and war on Iran’s terms; war in which we take the initiative and thus have every prospect of winning, and war in which Iran holds the trump card, which means we have a near certainty of losing.

At the same time, as Bolton also emphasised, making such a grim choice must be a last resort. All-out war with Iran is a prospect fraught with appalling perils and uncertainties. Only a fool would embark upon such a war precipitately. But only a fool would rule it out as a possibly inevitable last resort. The problem is that the EU — and parts of the US government — are behaving as if such a last resort is totally unthinkable. This has powerfully undermined the diplomacy, since Iran clearly believes — and with good reason — that the west simply isn’t serious about enforcing its will and will never go to war against Iran in any circumstances.

I this Phillips is right on the generalities of her statement, but would disagree with her comment that, "Iran that will hold the world to nuclear ransom, having destroyed Israel as a throat-clearing exercise."

Israel has developed an air force over the past decade with the express purpose of targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, which explains their purchase of long-range F-15I "Ra'am" and F-16I "Sufa" strike fighters. Israel has purchased 25 of the F-15I "Ra'am" strike fighters and 102 F-16I "Sufa" strike fighters, the last of which will be delivered in 2008. These aircraft have the capability of hitting Iranian targets without in-flight refueling, and with in-flight refueling, could target any location in that country. Both aircraft are capable of carrying "bunkerbuster" bombs thought to have been purchased from the United States, and would almost certainly be designed to carry the 60-85 nuclear weapons (according to the DIA) thought to be in Israeli inventories.

A U.S. Army paper cites the data of a fired Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, who went public with his information in 1985, which seems to indicate:

...a sophisticated nuclear program, over 200 bombs, with boosted devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, and Jericho warheads.

The same paper also indicates that Israel's military may already have official government authorization for a retaliatory nuclear strike if Israel was struck first with nuclear weapons.

Iran may very well destroy Israel as a nation in a nuclear first strike, but Israel's nuclear arsenal would answer holocaust with a holocaust, and as noted yesterday, the Hojjatieh cult running Iran may very well be depending on an Israel response to force a messianic return.

Iran will either be stripped of its nuclear weapons program, or Iran (and other countries) will be stripped of life.

While the headline was perhaps a bit misleading, it was nonetheless true: if economic sanctions and regime change efforts fail, we must attack Iran before it gets the bomb to avoid the deaths of tens of millions.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:48 AM | Comments (13)

An Accidental Interview

I had an interesting twenty-minute face-to-face conversation with a Spec Ops soldier named "K.C." last night.

K.C. first jumped into Iraq on March 26, 2003 with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, in the largest combat air drop since WWII. He most recently served in a six-man Long Range Surveillance (LRS) unit. The LRS are direct descendents of the famed LRRP "A-teams" of the Vietnam War era.

He was careful not to mention assignments or duty locations, but based upon some of the things he stated in our conversation, I gather that he has served extensively in Iraq, and perhaps in Afghanistan as well. He is presently on leave.

During the course of our conversation, K.C. told me the same things I've heard time and again from soldiers at nearby Fort Bragg, airmen from Pope AFB, and the occasion Marines from Camp Lejune and MCAS Cherry Point.

Stop me if you've heard these before.

"The war you see in the media is not the war we are fighting."

If he has his way, K.C. would boot all media out of Iraq. Like others soldiers and Marines before him, he noted to problem of news organizations basing many of their stories based upon anecdotal conversations from locals with their own agendas, while ignoring the testimony of U.S. soldiers, or sometimes cherry-picking comments and dowdifying them to the point that they no longer reflected what the soldier actually said, reflected the battles they've fought, or the experiences they've had. Reporters have alsoeither ignored the physical evidence supporting soldiers contentions, or have been too ignorant or biased to assimilate the information.

K.C.'s observation reminds me of a conversation I had with a soldier who fought in Ramadi some months ago, who spoke of an attack in his area that left civilians dead. The media blamed the deaths on a firefight involving U.S. forces, even though it was 7.62x39mm shell casings (the cartridge used almost universally by Arab militaries, militias, and insurgent groups) and expended RPG fragments found at the scene of the attack, and no signs of American involvement were present.

K.C. related one particular story that obviously still bothered him, that of a school hit by insurgents during the early days of the war. The insurgents killed a number of children, and the media accounts he later saw attributed it to a U.S. airstrike.

I guess that even though the AP has stopped using his name since he was exposed as a fraud, Jamil Not-Hussein still really gets around.

I told him about milblogs, maintained by the active duty soldiers and veterans, and how I thought that if the military was smart, they'd make an effort to channel more information through them to bypass the media that he and other soldiers distrust so much, enabling soldiers to directly tell their stories and experiences to the world. He liked the concept quite a bit, even though he stated he couldn't write about what he personally did.

I hope any military brass that happen to be reading this listens.

"G--D--- Democrats"

Like every single soldier, airman and Marine I've talked to, K.C. is disgusted with Democrat politicians. He pulls no punches: he considers them supporters of terrorism. Period.

This is a sentiment I've also heard before, and interestingly enough, it seems, at least among those I've talked with, that the infantry soldiers and Marines who have spent the most time on the ground feel this the strongest.

Of course, this could have several reasons. The frontline soldiers have more personally invested blood, sweat and tears in the war, have lost friends, and have killed men in Iraq. They also interact with the Iraqi people, and would presumably know them and the culture better than support troops or the airmen I've spoken with. Some seemed to like the Iraqi people, some did not, but to a man, they all wanted to continue the mission and were visibly, coldly (and sometimes not so coldly) angry with Democratic attempts to lose the war.

I shook hands with K.C., wished him well, and told him to keep his head down as he prepares for his next deployment in Our Children's Children's War.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:46 AM | Comments (12)

May 15, 2007

Remembering a Fallen Soldier

I sincerely hope that I'm readying Steve Clemons wrong (my bold):

But this young man did serve his nation -- but his death is so incredibly tragic, like the others -- but his even more because his well-respected father has been working hard to end this horrible, self-damaging crusade. It's incredibly sad.

Is Clemon's really saying that this son's loss is more tragic than others, because the father shares Clemon's anti-war beliefs?

Jules Crittenden, who knew Professor Bacevich, offers a much more fitting tribute.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:57 AM | Comments (8)

The Eschatology of the Coming Nuclear War

U.S. News and World Report has a short post up concerning the simulation of nuclear detonations in the Middle East:

A simulation has determined that any major use of nuclear forces in the Middle East in the next decade would most likely be "existential," meaning that an attack would amount to an effort to destroy a nation and the ability of its people to ever recover from a nuclear exchange. The briefers determined that Israel would be vulnerable to such attacks--and so would any Iranian attacker. The simulation was developed by the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., to examine the nuclear dynamics likely to develop in the Middle East between 2010 and 2020.

"In fact," noted a Center for Strategic and International Studies summary of the briefing released today, "a nation like Iran--with so much of its economy, culture, and government concentrated in Tehran and a few other cities, might prove to be far more vulnerable to the forces Israel could develop than Israel would be to the forces Iran could hope to deploy" until the end of the 2010-2020 time period. The briefing covers the use of nuclear ground bursts, fallout, longer-term death rates, and population-killing strikes. Other targets will likely include oil and gas distribution and loading facilities, desalination and water purification plants, electric power plants, and refineries--targets likely to affect the general population.

First, is there ever a "minor" use of nuclear forces?

But that isn't my main focus here.

The writer of this piece seems to imply that Iran's vulnerability to a nuclear exchange would keep it from starting a nuclear exchange with Israel. To make such an assumption, if this is the writer's intent, is a failure of cultural understanding.

It would perhaps be fair to apply Western standards and values to the state of Israel, as so much of the Israeli population emigrated to Israel from western nations, and their society and government hold with Westernized cultural values, but to attempt to apply those same cultural values to an Iranian government run by this mullacracy is to avoid the plain fact that Iran's leaders have values shaped by a radical theology all their own.

The Iranian government--and hence its rapidly expanding nuclear weapons program, is slaved to the beliefs of a radical Shia sect called the Hojjatieh, a cult within Shia Islam so radical that it was outlawed in 1983 by Ayatollah Khomeini.

As notes the Persian Journal:

According to Shi'ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi'ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

"Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society."

"Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems," he added, newspapers and local news agencies reported.

Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.

A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed.

This fascination has prompted wild stories to circulate.

Presidential aides have denied a popular rumor that he ordered his cabinet to write a letter to the 12th Imam and throw it down a well near the holy city of Qom where thousands of pilgrims come each week to pray and drop messages to the Imam.

But what really has tongues wagging is the possibility that Ahmadinejad's belief in the 12th Imam's return may be linked to the supposed growing influence of a secretive society devoted to the Mahdi which was banned in the early 1980s.

Founded in 1953 and used by the Shah of Iran to try to eradicate followers of the Bahai faith, the Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.

How seriously should we take the ruling Hojjatieh sect?

The executive summary of one study provided to the U.S. military by a strategic planning contractor stated:

Ultra-religious Shia clerics and Ahmadinejad are dedicated to the near-term messianic return of the 12th Imam via the creation of an apocalypse.

I don't think it gets much clearer than that.

The contention is that not only do the Hojjatieh anticipate the "creation of chaos on earth," they actively seek to create an apocalypse. Based upon their public pronoucements and nuclear weapons research, it seems quite clear that their preferred method is to instigate a nuclear attack against Israel. They know that Israel will respond with a retaliatory nuclear strike of their own, and are in fact, are more than likely counting on it.

It is this Israeli return nuclear strike on Tehran that Ahmadinejad and the Hojjatieh are counting upon to trigger the Madhi's return.

Iran and Ahmadinejad have been very clear in their desire to see Israel "wiped off the map," with multiple threatening pronouncements, and Ahmadinejad himself seems quite convinced that he is on a mission from Allah.

Mortal concerns and fears have little importance for an Iranian leadership seemingly bent on using a nuclear war to force a messianic return. Tens of millions may perish because a once-outlawed cult thinks a nuclear war will convince a four-year-old messiah to crawl out of a well in which he's been hiding 1,066 years.

I sadly fear that Democratic Party principles of avoidance will force our government to continue to discount the Iranian nuclear threat until after Iranian missiles are already arcing in towards Tel Aviv, at which point any further action against Iran will be addressed to a relative handful of survivors.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:41 AM | Comments (12)

May 14, 2007

Al Qaeda Warns U.S. To Stop Search For Missing Soldiers

On Saturday, a U.S. patrol was ambushed near Mahmoudiya, Iraq. Four U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi soldier acting as their interpreter was killed in the ambush, and three soldiers are missing. The Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), an al Qaeda front group, is claiming responsibility for the attack, and has warned the thousands of coalition forces in the area to stop looking for the missing soldiers.

While we all obviously hope that the three missing soldiers will be recovered alive, I suspect that they were never captured alive to begin with, a sad suspicion shared at Hot Air. Knowing the fate in store for them if they did surrender--brutal torture followed by a YouTubed beheading--our soldiers would most likely fight to the death.

Because of this, I suspect al Qaeda managed a successful ambush and body thievery, but captured no living prisoners.

The al Qaeda cry to quit looking for the captured soldiers was likely issued from fears that the on-going search would further disrupt al Qaeda terrorist cells and turn up weapons caches. Thus far, two terrorists have been killed, four others wounded, and 100 people have been detained as the military sweep south of Baghdad continues.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:36 PM | Comments (3)

Dollard: Starving Parasites

Pat Dollard, Hollywood agent turned combat filmmaker and IED magnet, is echoing a sentiment I've been hearing more and more from fellow combat journalists: the war in Iraq is going very badly... for al Qaeda:

Terrorists are parasites. They rely on a host body to support them. Now they can terrorize a host body into providing them support, but that will only go so far. Ultimately, the host body must be somewhat sympathetic to the terrorists, or else, by sheer dint of numbers, the members of the host body will be able to reject the terrorists. These two principles explain the entire history of Al Qaeda’s reign over Al Anbar. Al Anbar, like Al Qaeda, is a Sunni entity. The people of Al Anbar were sympathetic enough to Al Qaeda that they provided them sanctuary, support and even manpower - which is to say, the very lifeblood that this parasite required. Finally, the Sunnis of Al Anbar had enough of the bleak and empty future, and very bloody present, that comprised the entirety of Al Qaeda’s offerings. And so the host body rejected the parasite. The parasite is now in its last possible refuge, the mixed Sunni/Shiite Triangle of Death & Diyala Province areas, just south and northeast of Baghdad, respectively. My time in Iraq started there, and will likely end there. Along with Al Qaeda’s.

There is a reason neither Al Qaeda or the Iranian Shiite Insurgents have no traction in Kurdistan. There is no sympathetic and compliant host body. There is a reason Al Qaeda has no traction in the southern/eastern Shiite areas of Iraq. There is no compliant, sympathetic (which is to say, Sunni) host body. There is only one place left with enough of a sympathetic, compliant host body for Al Qaeda to keep itself alive in. This is the mixed Sunni/Shiite Triangle of Death. An appropriate appellation for the battlefield of Iraq’s Apocalypse with its Public Enemy #1. Iraqis, Al Qaeda, U.S. forces. A triangle of death, indeed.

We're not hearing very much like this from the professional media nor the U.S. military, for very understandable and strikingly similar reasons.

The media staked out their narrative to a doomed war long ago, and will only begin to back off of that position once they are sure that al Qaeda,
and the Sunni insurgency is nearing collapse. The Iraqi government, U.S. government, and Coalition military and police forces are likewise cautious about overstating successes knowing that previous claims of a faltering insurgency have turned out to be false.

But Dollard's comments are part of a low, growing rumble from observers who have seen Iraq firsthand. Bill Roggio, J.D. Johannes, and others have been noting for several months the turnaround in al Anbar province, formerly the heart of the Sunni insurgency, as the Anbar Awakening has seen the overwhelming majority of the Sunni tribes once loyal to al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency reject the terrorists, and accept the U.S. and coalition forces as allies. It is these tribes that are now leading the hunt for al Qaeda, joining the Iraqi police and military in record numbers, and when they cannot get into official government security positions fast enough to hunt the terrorists, using their own ad hoc tribal militias to establish neighborhood security checkpoints and choke al Qaeda off and attack and kill al Qaeda aligned tribes.

This Awakening movement has spread as al Qaeda becomes the hunted in Anbar. al Qaeda continues its flight to Diyala, only to find the Sunni Awakening spreading to Diyala as well.

The media, quick to notice stumbling blocks and setbacks, seems unable to mention the obvious truth that al Qaeda and their Sunni allies, along with similar efforts by Shia militias trained and equipped by Iran, are also in their own version of a surge to counter our own.

Shia death squads will step up attacks against Sunni civilians in an effort to stoke Sunni militancy, just as the Islamic State of Iraq, a Sunni insurgent umbrella group, attempts to goad Sunnis into attacks against Shia, and al Qaeda continues to indiscriminately target Sunni, Shia, and Kurd to increases tensions among all groups.

What the U.S. military is hoping to accomplish with the COIN doctrine will not end the insurgency overnight, nor was that ever the promise. What it does intend, and where it is succeeding, is in engaging the Iraqis and helping civilians tired of war turn on Sunni, Shia, and al Qaeda militants among them.

As Dollard and others have noted, and as the British noted in Mayala, insurgencies are only viable as long as the population will support them. While it typically takes a decade or longer to completely defeat an insurgency, they rarely (never?) succeed once the bulk of the population turns against them. Once that tipping point is reached, much more blood may yet be spilled, but the final outcome all but assured.

Dollard is correct when he states al Qaeda in Iraq may end in Diyala. The tipping point against them seems to have already been reached in al Anbar, with the bulk of their former allies turning against them, and now hunting them down like dogs. As the Diyala Awakening gathers momentum, al Qaeda and aligned insurgents will no doubt mount more spectacular, bloody attacks in an attempt to intimidate the population into compliance. Like in al Anbar, those attacks are only likely to fuel anti-al Qaeda, anti-insurgency sentiment.

It is still very possible, considering the political climate, that we can still lose the war in Iraq because of its unpopularity here in the United States, and a corrupt and incompetent Iraqi government apparently more interested in personal profit than national unity and reconciliation. Our military is stretched close to its limits, and the will of Iran and Syria to continue supporting various militias and insurgent groups does not appear to lack resolve, or any real consequences for their support from either the United Nations or the United States.

The governments of the United States, Great Britain, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and perhaps a dozen other countries near and far are attempting to shape Iraq's future for their own best interests. The various religions, sects, and tribes within Iraq have formed and split alliances over the past four-plus years, attempting to do what they think is best for themselves. With all of these internal and external actors attempting to exert power and influence, it is ultimately up to the Iraqi people to determine which fate will envelope their nation. Perhaps the rise of The Awakening al Anbar and Diyala are an indication that the future they are choosing is one of hope amidst the carnage.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:20 AM | Comments (1)

May 11, 2007

Mort Kondrake's Final Solution

Writing today at RealClearPolitics, Mort Kondrake's basic solution to the problems poised by the Iraq War is genocidally specific:

Without prejudging whether President Bush's "surge" policy will work, the administration and its critics ought to be seriously thinking about a Plan B, the "80 percent solution" - also known as "winning dirty." Right now, the administration is committed to building a unified, reconciled, multisectarian Iraq - "winning clean." Most Democrats say that's what they want, too. But it may not be possible.

The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.

There is a certain simple genius to Kondrake's formulation.

If you don't like the problems poised by 20% of the population, simply eliminate the problematic population.

Why would anyone object?


Allah tackles this "solution" as well.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:33 PM | Comments (5)

Surrendercrats Threaten War Effort, Military Pay

Once again, Congressional Democrats show which side they support in the Iraq War, and it isn't ours:

The Democratic-controlled House voted Thursday night to pay for military operations in Iraq on an installment plan, defying President Bush's threat of a second straight veto in a fierce test of wills over the unpopular war.

The 221-205 vote was largely along party lines and sent the measure to a cool reception in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is seeking a compromise with the White House and Republicans.

The bill was passed by House Democrats only as an act of political gamesmanship with our soldiers lives, as they that knew it would likely die in the Senate.

The continuing failure of anti-victory House Democrats to deliver a viable war funding bill is already impacting the military:


Delays in getting an emergency supplemental war-funding bill approved are causing disruption within the Defense Department, particularly among programs at home, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today. The Army has slowed spending in numerous areas to free up money to fully fund wartime costs since President Bush vetoed war-spending legislation because it set a date for the return of combat forces from Iraq, Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee.

The bill included $93.4 billion to help fund U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terror, but stipulated that U.S. combat troops be out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2008. It also included costs unrelated to the war.

Bush vetoed the bill because he rejects establishing a deadline for troop withdrawals, insisting that such decisions must be based on conditions in the war zone.

Gates told Congress today that delays in getting a spending bill approved are having "a growing impact here at home."

"The Army is already trying to cope with this," he said. Spending in various programs has slowed or stopped altogether, he said. Defense contracts are being withheld; hiring of civilian employees has slowed; and bases have begun resorting to month-to-month service contracts for services and supplies.

The failure of Democrats to fund our military at war has some U.S. Servicemen wondering if their paychecks may stop. It sounds like it's time for an important action alert:

Is it possible airmen might not get paid due to the rising costs of the war?

That's what many airmen have wanted to know since the Pentagon requested to divert $1.6 billion from the Navy and Air Force personnel accounts to the Army.

The Air Force has sent conflicting answers in the past three weeks. Last month, the Air Force hinted in a statement sent to Stars and Stripes that it was possible such a move could affect airmen’s paychecks.

On Monday, an Air Force spokeswoman said that would "never" happen. A day later, Maj. Morshe Araujo said she made a mistake and such a scenario could happen if the money is not returned.

However, the Air Force is optimistic about the money being restored.

"I misspoke," said Araujo, a public affairs officer in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. "If the money is not returned or restored, there is a possibility."

Some might argue that servicemembers are underpaid, but it is not believed there has ever been a time in modern history that troops have not paid, especially while the country is at war.

Chet Curtis, director of Policy and Communications for the Air Force Association, said he couldn't recall off the top of his head whether such a thing has ever happened.

The association, an independent nonprofit Air Force advocate group, is calling upon its members to contact the Bush administration and members of Congress and urge them to boost funding for the Air Force.

The association put out an "Action Alert" on its Website under the headline: Air Force Funding Critical.

Although the Air Force is confident Congress will pass a supplemental bill and restore the funding to the personnel accounts, the service said on Tuesday it needs the money to pay their people.

But just remember...

shootOfficers

support_troops

...they support the troops.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:39 AM | Comments (10)

May 10, 2007

Now Or Later

They keep telling us we're not at war with Iran:

U.S.-led forces conducted a raid in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City early Thursday, killing three militants as they tried to break up a cell accused of smuggling weapons from Iran to fight U.S. forces, the military said.

The raid was part of the military's 12-week-old Baghdad security plan, meant to tackle the Sunni-led insurgents and Shiite militias and bring order to the violence-wracked Iraqi capital.

Just after midnight, a joint U.S.-Iraqi force on a raid in the southern part of the Shiite slum of Sadr City, came under fire from two buildings, the military said in a statement. After a gunbattle, the soldiers called in an airstrike that killed three armed insurgents, it said.

The force was searching for a cell suspected of smuggling weapons, including the devastating explosively formed penetrators, from Iran, the military said. The group was also accused of sending militants to Iran for training, the military said. The force detained four of the suspected militants during the raid, the military said.

This on-going Iranian involvement in Iraq should force Americans, particularly Congressional Democrats and waffling Republicans, to consider what will happen if American forces precipitously withdraw from Iraq. Iran, accused of training thousands of Shia insurgents and supplying weapons to both Shia and Sunni insurgents, is posing to fill the vacuum left by an American withdrawal.

If Democrats are successful in their neo-copperhead attempts to force an American withdrawal, many experts and long-time journalists expect that the Iranian attempts to take over Iraq by proxy may result in genocide and a clear PR victory for al Qaeda. Others rightly fear that such a threat will draw Saudi Arabia into a regional war based in Iraq, where Shias funded, trained, and equipped by Iran, will square off against Iraqi Sunnis trained, funded, and equipped by Saudi Arabia.

If the proxy war is contained to Iraq, the overwhelming numerical superiority of Shias in Iraq may very well lead to a either a mass exodus of Sunnis, or a mass genocide dwarfing the civilian casualties of the Iraq War thus far. The failed state would presumably fall under Iranian control from Baghdad south.

If the war is not contained to Iraq, and open hostilities break out between Iran and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf States such as Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, we could very well see a more expanded, more violent version of the 1984-87 Tanker War. In that conflict, which resulted from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Iran and Iraq began targeting merchant shipping in an attempt to cut off each other's oil exports. Seventy-one merchant ships, including oil tankers, were attacked in 1984 alone, forcing Lloyds of London to increase insurance rates on tankers and leading to a twenty-five percent reduction in Gulf shipping. Since the 1980s, advances in military missile technology has made it possible for all sides potentially involved in a regional war to unilaterally stop all Persian Gulf shipping. The result of such a stoppage would threaten global oil supplies, and the economic and national security of many nations.

This is at a minimum. It could get much worse.

A U.S. pullout in 2008 could potentially lead to an economically-necessitated re-invasion of Iraq and a direct conflict with Iran within the next five years.

While Iran's naval and air force assets could be theoretically be reduced with minimal U.S. losses, a scenario predicted by DOD strategic planning contractor VII, Inc. called "Yalu II," in a January 2006 document called "Iranian President-Islamic Eschatology: Near Term Implications," posits that the Iranian military may respond to their air and naval shortcomings by sending up to 350,000 conventional Army forces, supplemented by roughly 1,800 tanks and 2,300 towed and self-propelled artillery pieces, across southern Iraq. This scenario was presented by VII before threats of a wider regional war were being discussed. I would add to VII's assessment that Iran may do more than invade southern Iraq, and may opt to attack Saudi Arabia though Kuwait, threatening, at least on paper, King Khalid Military City, the Saudi Persian Gulf city of Jubail and the Saudi military bases concentrated around Jubail, and the Saudi Capital of Riyahd itself.

Ultimately, such a direct assault on Saudi Arabia would probably lead to an Iranian defeat as their supply lines would be very vulnerable to Saudi Arabian and allied air superiority, but by then, Iran would have either captured or destroyed Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil terminals and wells. Were this scenario to play out, this would mean that Iran would control or would have destroyed 32% of Gulf oil production, based upon 2003 estimates.

This sequence of events is of course speculative.

Iran may very well be content to use their Shia militia allies to overthrow Iraq internally, and confine themselves to isolating Iraqi Sunnis and Kurds instead of eliminating them wholesale. They would then control roughly 20% of Persian Gulf oil exports directly, while still being able to threaten the 90% of Persian Gulf oil exported by supertanker through the Straits of Hormuz as they continue down the path of developing nuclear weapons.

What is the best way to head off either scenario?

The answer is obvious: keep Coalition forces engaged in Iraq targeting Sunni and Shia extremist cells like the one American soldiers attacked today. Force the Iraq government into making progress on unresolved issues, and perhaps consider replacing Prime Minster Maliki if he fails to make progress, by supporting other candidates for the position. Keep engaging Sunni and Shia moderates, while building up Iraqi police and Army forces. While internal Iraqi groups are relying on external forces to build their powerbases, America should continue to support that national cultural, political, and security needs of Iraq. Continue the COIN strategy to root out insurgents and develop regional and national Iraqi unity. Continue to support insurgent movements in Iran to destabilize the mullacracy.

It should be blindingly obvious to all sides concerned that a failure to resolve the political and security needs of Iraq now will only necessitate a later, perhaps larger and longer military reentry into the region, after what many predict will be a large and unnecessary loss of civilian lives.

After four years of muddled strategies, real progress is being made in Iraq. Al Anbar, long the home of the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda's launching ground, has turned against al Qaeda and is joining the political process, developments that have been reported on scarcely in the western media. A similar movement is now emerging in Diyala Province, as Iraqis target, hunt and kill al Qaeda terrorists and the insurgents of the Islamic State of Iraq.

You will have a very hard time discovering this through the traditional media, however, as they tend to underestimate the importance of such tectonic cultural shifts which are very hard to translate into a press dominated by "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy.

The groups primarily active in an opposition to the "surge" of American troops are al Qaeda and their allies in the Islamic State of Iraq, who are staging their own counter-surge, aimed as much at western media as the Iraqi people.

If you note news accounts of the last several months as the surge began, the types of attacks in Iraq shifted.

Sectarian attacks have dropped substantially, as al Qaeda and the ISI have shift to an intensified pattern of often randomized car and truck bombings meant to capture media attention and draw away from the fact that their internal support within Iraq is faltering. The goal of their media campaign is transparent; make it appear that the situation on the ground in Iraq is unchanged or becoming worse, thereby increasing American resistance to remaining in Iraq, even as their own base of support falters and threatens outright collapse.

Indeed, the U.S. military and astute observers predicted this, and so they expect an increase in spectacular media-generating attacks on civilians and Coalition military and police casualties as these forces more forcefully project themselves into areas and increase pressure on anti-government forces.

If you listen to our men in the field—not the Washington politicians who say they will refuse to believe signs of progress, or lie about what they have heard—you will hear many opinions, but the one most common is that they see a real difference in Iraq since the implementation of the COIN strategy. They are even petitioning Congress for courage, and not to give up, even when it is their lives on the line.

We're going to have to finish this war. The only question is whether Democrats lead the cut-and-run now and give al Qaeda and Iran a clear victory setting up a potential genocide, or whether or not we continue the successes now being seen in al Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala.

The later approach will save for more Iraqi and American lives in the long run. I hope we have strong enough leadership that we only have to fight this war once, but with Democrats still attempting to surrender to al Qaeda and other Islamofascists, and the far left increasingly in bed with Islamofascists, I fear all we may accomplish is a brief, bloody intermission before we refight this war on a larger, bloodier scale.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:56 AM | Comments (5)

May 09, 2007

Close Enough

If you use bloglines and have the ABC News International feed, you might have seen something like this today:

bloglines

It you actually clicked the link, however, you'd end up here.

Do you have questions about situation in Darfur? Send your questions and see them answered next week on our 24-hour news network, ABC News Now.

Screen Cap:

switch

I've got a question, Terry: Why can't ABC News tell the difference between Darfur and Iraq?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:31 PM | Comments (1)

Four More Arrested in 7/7 London Bombing Plot

Via CNN:

British police arrested the wife of one of the July 7, 2005 suicide bombers as well as three other suspects in early morning terror-related raids Wednesday.

While the identities of the suspects have yet to be officially released, sources told CNN the woman being held is 29-year-old Hasina Patel, the widow of Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the 7/7 suicide bombers.

Patel and two men aged of 30 and 34 were arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service Counter Terrorism Command in the West Yorkshire, England area. A fourth man, 22, was arrested in West Midlands.

A statement from Scotland Yard said, the four were arrested under the country's terrorism laws "on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism."

The arrests were made in a "pre-planned, intelligence-led operation," the statement said, as part of an ongoing investigation into the July 7 attacks on London's transportation system that killed 52 people and injured 700.

The arrests are part of an on-going investigation to help roll-up the support network that enabled four suicide bombers to carry out the series of attacks that occured almost to years ago, and more arrests are possible.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:13 AM | Comments (0)

May 08, 2007

The Iranian Minefield

A Pajamas Media exclusive:

Maj. Martin Weber, an explosives expert, is trying to walk through a political mine field with me.

As with an ordinary mine field, you have to be very careful where you put your emphasis. Stress the wrong truth and either the left or the right wants to blow you up.

Here at Camp Victory, a sprawling concrete and razor wire American base that wraps around Baghdad International Airport, Maj. Weber was trying to explain how to negotiate that mine field. On the one side he wanted me to know me that the captured weapons on the table before us were — definitely, no doubt about it, absolutely — from Iran. On the other hand, he avoided drawing the obvious conclusion that Iran is supplying America’s enemies inside Iraq.

That simple and obvious conclusion would anger the Democratic leadership in Congress, much of the press corp, and a large swarth of the antiwar set.

Bear this is mind, when you watch this exclusive Pajamas Media video shot in Iraq. The video offers startling new evidence of Iran’s involvement in the insurgency. It is the first up-close, online video showing captured Iranian weapons. These particular weapons have not been shown to the public before.

There is video of the interview at the link.

As a side note, I've been attempting to follow-up on the capture of over 12% of Iran's HS50 precision sniper rifle procurement in Iraq first reported in mid-February, without any response thus far from MNF-I PAO.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:59 AM | Comments (13)

Child Mortality Discrepancy?

Writing in the UK Independent, Andrew Buncombe states:

Two wars and a decade of sanctions have led to a huge rise in the mortality rate among young children in Iraq, leaving statistics that were once the envy of the Arab world now comparable with those of sub-Saharan Africa.

A new report shows that in the years since 1990, Iraq has seen its child mortality rate soar by 125 per cent, the highest increase of any country in the world. Its rate of deaths of children under five now matches that of Mauritania.

Jeff MacAskey, head of health for the Save the Children charity, which published the report, said: "Iraq, Botswana and Zimbabwe all have different reasons for making the least amount of progress on child mortality. Whether it's the impact of war, HIV/Aids or poverty the consequences are equally devastating. Yet other countries such as Malawi and Nepal have shown that despite conflict and poverty child mortality rates can be reversed."

Figures collated by the charity show that in 1990 Iraq's mortality rate for under-fives was 50 per 1,000 live births. In 2005 it was 125. While many other countries have higher rates - Angola, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, all have rates above 200 - the increase in Iraq is higher than elsewhere.

Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison?

According to figures from the CIA World Factbook there are roughly 864,588 live births in Iraq every year (about 31.44 for every 1,000 citizens). In 2003 there was an infant mortality rate in Iraq of 55.16 per 1,000 births, or about 47,690 infant deaths.

In 2006 that infant mortality rate has dropped to 48.64 deaths per 1,000 births. Or about 42,503 infant deaths/year. Or about 5,187 fewer dead infants every year than in 2003.

So is it safe to say that we’ve saved roughly (and these numbers are, admittedly, very rough) 15,000 infant lives since invading Iraq?

Note that the statistics cited by Buncombe are addressing the death rates of children under five between 1990-today, and Port's information isolates infant mortality from the time period of 2003-2006. Those differences noted, there seems to be a huge possible discrepancy between the rough number of 2005 under-five deaths reported by Save the Children through Buncombe (125) and the infant mortality rate of 55.16-48.64/1,000 determined by Port.

Both numbers could be correct, but for Save the Children's figures to be accurate based upon the CIA estimate of 864,588 live births, it would mean that 12.5% of Iraqi children under five, or 108,074 Iraqi children, died before the age of five in 2005 alone.

Does that figure seem plausible?

If it does, why has the professional media done such a miserable job of reporting the staggering losses of children in Iraq, which would seem to dwarf most total estimates of combat-related deaths?

If it isn't accurate, why hasn't Buncombe done a better job of fact-checking his sources?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:15 AM | Comments (9)

Clever Little Weapons



Rattlesnake D: The Missile

Michael Yon's latest dispatch Rattlesnake, chronicles the nighttime hunting of insurgent IED teams in southern Iraq.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (0)

Six Arrested in New Jersey Islamic Terror Plot

Via WNBC.com:

Six men from New Jersey have been arrested in an alleged terror plot against soldiers at Fort Dix, according investigators.

Investigators said the men planned to use automatic weapons to enter Fort Dix and kill as many soldiers as they could at the N.J. base. Fort Dix was just one of several military and security locations allegedly scouted by this group, authorities said.

[snip]

The six suspects arrested Monday night will face terror conspiracy charges. Three of the men are brothers, all believed to be islamic radicals. Authorities have told Newschannel 4 that some of the men were born in Albania and the former Yugoslavia. Investigators said most of the suspects have spent several years here in the U.S.

According to WPVI, the six men attempted to purchase fully automatic AK-47s from an arms dealer working with the FBI. WABC describes the six men as all being ethnic Albanians. Their immigration status was not clear from news accounts. WCAU notes that the men traveled from South Jersey to the Pocano mountains "to practice firing automatic weapons." If accurate, this means that investigators allowed the men to obtain the fully automatic AK-47s before affecting an arrest. CBS News states that this was a "homegrown" terror plot, and that there were no known ties to any international terror organization, including al Qaeda.

The New Jersey Star-Ledger presents perhaps the most comprehensive account to date, which confirms that the attack busted in the planning stages was an intended act of jihad, that the men were arrested while attempting to purchase the AK-47s from the FBI informant dealer, and that the men did not practice with automatic weapons in the Poconos, but instead, used paintball guns and other "real weapons."

The Star-Ledger also shows that while the men may not have been part of an international terror cell, they were certainly inspired by al Qaeda:

The would-be attackers, ethnic Albanians who had been under surveillance by the FBI for months, practiced by shooting paintball guns and real weapons in a rural area of the Poconos, one source said. They also allegedly watched jihadist videos in which Osama bin Laden urged them toward martyrdom.

"They were prepared to die," said the law enforcement source. "We became increasingly convinced this was for real and these guys were ready to roll."

The FBI had the group under surveillance for more than a year, the source said. The men had scouted out Dover Air Force Base and Fort Monmouth before settling on Fort Dix, a base that is used to mobilize troops to Iraq, said the source.

The men - several of whom were in the same family - had videotaped their practice sessions in the Poconos, the source said. That videotape, in which they railed against America, led to their arrests.

The men made the mistake of bringing it to a retail store, seeking to get a copy burned to a DVD, according to one of the sources. A store employee who later watched the tape called the FBI who began immediately investigating.

The one question I have about the above Star-Ledger account is perhaps a quibble, but something I'd like to have cleared up; did they watch a generally addressed martyrdom video extolling Muslims towards jihad, or as this account states, did they watch a video urging them towards martyrdom? I suspect the former, as if the latter is the case, it would seem to prove a direct al Qaeda link.

Note that the Islamists here were anything but intelligent, bringing their homegrown jihadi video to a retail store to burn it to DVD, where a concerned and alert employee contacted the FBI, which launched the investigation.

I hope President Bush will quietly award a Presidential Medal of Freedom to both the video store employee and the gun dealer for their roles in helping break up this attack in the planning stages.

Update: Heh. Did the tip come from Tony Soprano?

Update: Allah is tracking this story at well over at Hot Air.

Update: CNN reports that one of the suspects was Jordanian and another was Turkish, with the rest being Yugoslavian.

The Washington Post adds that the suspects have lived in the United States for "several years."

CBS3 provides more detail on the suspects:

Sources said the suspects included:

- Three brothers from Yugoslavia who came to the country illegally and were living in Cherry Hill.

- A Yugoslavian native who was living legally in Williamstown.

- A Turkey native who was arrested in the 2100 block of Tremont Street in Philadelphia

- A Jordan National living in Pennsauken who was working as a cab driver. He was taken into custody while in his cab at the Philadelphia International Airport.

Officials said the men attempted to purchase AK-47s from an arms dealer secretly cooperating with law enforcement agents.

Sources said the suspects trained for the plot in an area near Routes 30 and 380 in the Poconos. The suspects apparently had maps and had done surveillance on Fort Dix in preparation for the plot.

If the CBS3 account is correct, at least three of the six plotters were here illegally, and all were here for a least a year, if not several years.

Update: I formally move that we call this the "Duka, Duka, Mohammed Jihad."

Update: A total of ten men were seen on the video that launched the investigation, as reported in this document obtained by The Smoking Gun.

Update: A sampling of liberal blog reaction: The Agonist: "...when are these insignificant cases going to stop being blown out of proportion?" Talking Points Memo: "It's always hard for me to see how these aren't as serious as they appear. But there is a record." Middle Earth Journal: "This will probably turn out to be another José Padilla moment but it will be good for a lot of ape like chest pounding by the wingnut islamophobes." Mahablog: "The basic story is that six Islamic radicals were planning to attack Fort Dix and kill soldiers as part of a jihad against America. This is what the Department of Justice is saying, anyhow, so take that with a grain of salt."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:52 AM | Comments (27)

May 04, 2007

Because You Never Know When Global Warming Is Going to Fly Into a Building

A ship of fools, if ever there was one:

Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.

The House next week will consider the Democrat-crafted Intelligence Authorization bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.

"Our job is to steal secrets," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"There are all kinds of people analyzing global warming, the Democrats even have a special committee on this," he told The Washington Times. "There's no value added by the intelligence community here; they have no special expertise, and this takes money and resources away from other threats."

Democrats, who outnumber Republicans on the committee, blocked the minority from stripping the warming language from the bill.

Intelligence panel Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, said the climate-change study is one of several shifts his party has made to intelligence policy.

"We're concerned that global warming might impact our ability to maintain national security," he told The Times, describing the idea as "cutting edge."

As Ace notes, Reyes, the chairman of Intelligence Panel, is the man that doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, or or which al Qaeda is, and had no clue at all about the nature of Hezbollah.

Of course, he belong to a Democratic House whose Speaker doesn't even know that al Qaeda is in Iraq, so that bit of incompetence is sadly par for the course.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:29 PM | Comments (8)

Lost War Updates

A. J. Strata reports that al Qaeda in Iraq has lost its second caliphate capital in recent months, first losing their stronghold in Ramadi, and now, their base in the Tahrir neighborhood of Baqouba.

The U.S. military has confirmed that not one, but two senior al Qaeda commanders were killed north of Baghdad earlier this week.

Bill Roggio notes the continued expansion of the Anbar Salvation Council, and notes that one of the original tribes that supported al Qaeda in Iraq has flipped and joined the war against the terrorists. Ten Sunni tribes have turned to war against al Qaeda in the last month alone.

And last but by no means least, Lawrence Kaplan notes what most of us have long known: Congressional Democrats approach the Iraq War from a position of willful ignorance.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:28 PM | Comments (2)

Iraqi EFPS Prove to Be Duds; Iranian EFPs Still Lethal Threat

Several month's ago, Andrew Cockburn attacked President Bush and the United States military in the Los Angeles Times, for the President saying that the EFPs --explosively-formed penetrators--being used successfully against American military forces in Iraq with a great degree of effect came from Iran:

PRESIDENT BUSH HAS now definitively stated that bombs known as explosively formed penetrators — EFPs, which have proved especially deadly for U.S. troops in Iraq — are made in Iran and exported to Iraq. But in November, U.S. troops raiding a Baghdad machine shop came across a pile of copper disks, 5 inches in diameter, stamped out as part of what was clearly an ongoing order. This ominous discovery, unreported until now, makes it clear that Iraqi insurgents have no need to rely on Iran as the source of EFPs.

The truth is that EFPs are simple to make for anyone who knows how to do it. Far from a sophisticated assembly operation that might require state supervision, all that is required is one of those disks, some high-powered explosive (which is easy to procure in Iraq) and a container, such as a piece of pipe. I asked a Pentagon analyst specializing in such devices how much each one would cost to make. "Twenty bucks," he answered after a brief calculation. "Thirty at most."

Cockburn's venom and naked partisanship were obvious. What wasn't so obvious is that Cockburn didn't know what he was talking about.

While crude Iraqi machine shops can manufacture crude components, the EFPs they can manufacture are no serious threat to American armor.

Iraqi fighters have been making their own versions of the weapons, but so far none has been effective against U.S. forces, Odierno said. The Iraqi-made projectiles, using brass and copper melted on stoves, have failed to fully penetrate U.S. armor and are more likely to be used against Iraqi forces, whose vehicles often have thinner armored protection than U.S. vehicles, U.S. military officials said.

"We have not seen a homemade one yet that's executed properly," Odierno said, adding that such weapons are not a major concern "as of yet."

In short, Cockburn's assertion that "EFPs are simple to make for anyone who knows how to do it," betrays his ignorance of the difference between theory and practice. Theoretically, anyone could presumably find plans to build an EFP, but without the right materials, training, and manufacturing equipment, they could not make an EFP with the capability of defeating advanced armor.

It is not as simple to manufacture a competent EFP as Cockburn and others have mislead. Someone should alert the media, but then again, the majority of the media doesn't really care.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:33 AM | Comments (21)

May 03, 2007

Two Arrested Smuggling Iranian EFPs in Sadr City

Oui?

US forces arrested two Iraqis suspected of smuggling weapons and armour-piercing explosives from Iran in a dawn raid Thursday into Baghdad's Shiite slum Sadr City, the military announced.

The arrests came ahead of a possible first meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran and United States since 1980, at an international conference on the future of Iraq in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

"The individuals targeted during the raid are suspected members of a secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq," the military said.

The statement said the network was also training Iraqi militants in Iran.

The CENTCOM release this story was based upon is here.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:04 AM | Comments (0)

Pressure

The leader of the Islamic State of Iraq has been killed:

US and Iraqi forces have killed the head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), an umbrella group of Sunni insurgents which includes Al-Qaeda, Iraq's deputy interior minister said Thursday.

Minister Hussein Ali Kamal said the insurgent leader known as Omar al-Baghdadi was killed in western Baghdad. "His body is under the control of the interior ministry. His body has been identified," he told AFP.

Separately, US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris Garver said the military would hold a news conference later on Thursday to announce a "recent success against a senior leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Unlike the claimed but unconfirmed killing of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who was reportedly killed earlier this week in a firefight with one of a number of Sunni tribal militias formerly aligned with al Qaeda, who have now joined with Coalition forces, al-Baghdadi's body has been claimed and apparently identified.

For the roundup of this story, go to Pajamas Media.


al-Baghdadi's death is properly categorized as a "big fish;" al-Masri, as Dan Riehl noted, once declared allegiance to al-Baghdadi.

This news comes as Evan Kohlmann notes that the al Qaeda coalition continues to fracture:

In the wake of the recent and very public rift between the Sunni Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) and Al-Qaida's "Islamic State", yet more cracks are suddenly beginning to show in the unified jihadist coalition that Al-Qaida has been trying to assemble in Sunni regions of Iraq. Today, the IAI--along with factions from at least two other predominant Sunni militant groups, the Mujahideen Army and the notorious Ansar al-Sunnah Army--have officially announced the formation of their own separate political coalition: "The Reformation and Jihad Front" (RJF). This new front would seem to be a direct challenge to the authority of Al-Qaida's "Islamic State" and is said to enjoy support from Sunni Islamist circles (like Ansar al-Sunnah) which have, in the past, worked closely with Al-Qaida.

Kohlmann goes on to note that while the RJF is no ally of American nor Iraqi democracy, it poses a significant political threat to the future of al Qaeda in Iraq, perhaps even more significant than the formation of the Anbar Salvation Council.

Marc Lynch notes of the RJF that:

While the language is typically religious, the focus is exclusively Iraqi, and says nothing about wider global jihad.

As a result, the group should have more appeal to the various Sunni insurgent factions that are more nationalistic in their goals, and thus lessen support for al Qaeda in Iraq.

"Divide and conquer" was the original aim al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency, as they hoped to capture popular Iraqi support and use that support against the Iraqi government and the Coalition. It will be very interesting to see how the media decides to note the now obvious fact that it is al Qaeda and it's aligned Sunni groups that are fracturing, factionalizing, and turning on one another.

Update: A "Twofer?" Over at Hot Air, Bryan is running with a Washington Post article where General William Caldwell has confirmed that Muharib Abdul-Latif al-Jubouri, al-Qaida’s information minister, has been killed, a fact confirmed by DNA tests on the body:

Caldwell said the U.S. does not have the bodies of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State of Iraq, or Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, and doesn't know of "anybody that does."

He said the military had conducted numerous operations against al-Qaida in Iraq in the last six days.

Al-Jubouri was killed while trying to resist detention in an operation about four miles west of the Taji air base north of Baghdad early Tuesday, and the body was initially identified by photos, then confirmed by DNA testing Wednesday, he said.

Meanwhile, Bryan notes that Iraqi media sites such as Aswat al Iraq are still claiming al-Baghdadi's death, and even purport to have video of the body.

Who is right?

IraqSlogger isn't sure, but states that CNN is claiming that al-Baghdadi and Al-Jubouri may very well be the same person. I couldn't find that claim at CNN, so the statement only adds to the confusion.

The overall facts remain the same, regardless of which al Qaeda leader specifically died: al Qaeda in Iraq is being hunted, cornered, and killed or captured, and the pace of such operations seems to be increasing.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:37 AM | Comments (1)

May 02, 2007

Risible Tensions

If al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri was killed in Iraq in a clash yesterday as reported, it appears that tribes that are part of the Sunni Awakening will get credit for the kill:

A local leader from a village near Taji, Muhammad Fadhil of Nibaie, said he heard explosions and gunfire from Monday night through Tuesday morning. He believed the sounds came from clashes between al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters and men from the Falahat tribe and a tribal coalition known as the Anbar Salvation Council. Fadhil also said U.S. and Iraqi forces eventually cordoned off the area.

The Anbar Salvation Council is a Sunni group formerly loyal to al Qaeda and the insurgency that has since joined forces with the Iraqi government and coalition forces. The tribal militias have fought pitched battles against al Qaeda, and has killed or captured hundreds of terrorists over the course of the past few months.

CNN, as befitting their political bias, arrives to the party late:

Reports of fighting between al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni militants surfaced Tuesday, the latest hints of rising tensions between the two allied groups.

Other reports have emerged this year of tensions between Sunni fighters and the Sunni-dominated al Qaeda in Iraq, particularly from Anbar province, long a favored turf for indigenous Sunni insurgents and foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq from Syria.

The Awakening has been fighting tooth and claw against al Qaeda for months in battles involving hundreds of men at a time, (see the Roggio links above, and feel free to Google others), and CNN sees "hints of rising tensions?"

One can only wonder what maelstrom would force them to actually use the word "combat."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:53 AM | Comments (4)

May 01, 2007

Yon: Desires of the Human Heart

A two-part photo essay from embed Mike Yon, embedded with I-4 Cavalry (Fort Riley, Kansas) at COP Amanche, Baghdad:

Part I

Part II

Proud Mother

Mike writes of this photo, taken from Part II:

"I asked the woman above if she was the mom, but the camera had already captured the answer."

Cute Kid. Beaming Mom. These are among the people I worry about when I see Harry Reid declare the war "lost." If Reid and others are allowed to force a loss, what kind of future can this mother and child have?

Looking Out

No photo touches me more than these Iraqi children, particularly the girl in red, that Yon photographed last year in Iraq near the Iranian border.

Something about her haunts me. Perhaps it is her strength and sadness, or her passing resemblance to my niece.

I want these children to have a future that is better than their nation's horrific past decades or bloody present. I simply don't understand how we can help provide anything like that by declaring they aren't worth it, and running away.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:56 PM | Comments (3)

al-Masri's Rumored Death Shows Fruits of Sunni Awakening

The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was reportedly killed in a firefight today between al Qaeda and what has been described as a battle between insurgent groups by the Guardian, or by local Sunni tribesmen according to CNN. The account remains to be confirmed, and it must be noted that similar accounts in the past have been incorrect.

Both claims of who carried out the attack could be accurate, but the CNN account, which describes the site of the conflict as "a bridge in an area under Sunni tribal control," sounds like a description consistent with the Sunni tribal militias aligned with the al-Anbar "Awakening" movement, as described by combat filmmaker and blogger JD Johannes in this recent entry to his blog at Outside the Wire:

Driving along the four-lane highway from Habbaniyah to Ramadi there are the usual coalition check points, Iraqi Army Outposts, markets, black market gas stations and Police Stations.

But, off the main highway, on the access roads leading back into the Euphrates canal country, every half mile, gun men wearing Keyfahs and wielding AK-47s man road blocks--and they are the best allies we can have against the jihadists.

[snip]

Last Summer few Sheiks, notably around Ramadi flipped to the coalition and government side of the conflict.

The tribes sent levies to the Police Academies in Baghdad and Amman, Jordan. They have also started taking matters into their own hands with some men from each clan and tribe defending their villages.

What I saw in Husabayah Jawal was not the Iraqi Police or the Iraqi Army, but the beginings of the end of the insurgency in Iraq.

Whether they are the Sons of Al Anbar, Sawa, TAA, the militia or the Tribal Neighborhood Watch, tribes and clans across the Euphrates river valley are taking charge of their own security with back up from the Marines.

[snip]

The Iraq variant of the Home Guard emerged last year as many of the top sheiks, some who had opposed the coalition and some who had a foot in both camps saw that AQIZ was not following through on their promises and that the coalition was following through on their promises.

The other point that flipped the Sheiks is the simple fact that no one except for the hard core jihadists want to live under Sharia law--which is all the jihadists have to offer.

The Sheiks, sub-sheiks, former military leaders including a hero of the Iran/Iraq war who lived in the Khalidiayah area began the process of standing up neighborhood watch check points.

The neighborhood watch is supported by the Police District and Mayor. The Marines keep a close eye on the volunteers who man the check points but have no official involvement in their activities.

The Anbar Awakening is allowing one of the key aspects of counter insurgency operations to begin--population control and control of movement in and out of areas.

This firefight may have either been "red-on-red" fighting between an insurgent group and al Qaeda, or it could be the action of a tribal militia loyal to the "Awakening" and the Iraqi government.

If the former is correct and the firefight was a "red-on red" between insurgent groups, then it shows more evidence of a widening, lethal rift between various elements of a Sunni insurgency, an insurgency that has been showing increasing signs of fragmentation for months.

If the firefight was between al Qaeda and local Sunni militiamen loyal to the Awakening, then this battle is part of a trend that shows the vulnerability of al Qaeda and mobile insurgents to the "Home Guard" militias, local groups loyal to Sheiks aligning with the Iraqi government and coalition forces that know on sight whether or not people belong to a certain area. It is also worth mentionthat both accounts could very well be true, as these are not exclusive states of being with Sunni tribes in a state of flux.

This battle is one of many that has occurred in Iraq in the past few months as the Sunni Awakening that started last summer continues to bear fruit, further fracturing the insurgency as they turn on al Qaeda and the increasingly fewer number of Sunni tribes that see fighting the Iraqi government and coalition forces as a viable strategy.

While civilian and military casualties continue to mount in Iraq, the essential nature of the conflict has radically evolved, a fact under-reported in a world press that can understand simple concepts like body counts, but cannot or will not understand the underlying motivations and actors.

The original Sunni insurgency in Iraq that fought to overthrow or undermine the fledgling Iraqi government is not dead, but it is certainly, unequivocally, in the process of dying.

Today, the body counts continue to be high, but those dying in the string of horrific string of car and truck bomb attacks over the past few months are not being killed by popularly-supported Sunni insurgents, but instead, are being attacked by elements of al Qaeda. 80 to 90-percent of those carrying out suicide bombing in Iraq are not Iraqis, just as so many of the lethal EFP attacks being carried out against Coalition forces are the work of Shias that receive training and weaponry in Iran. Foreign actors are increasing taking the lead from the locals in the war against the Iraqi government.

Why does this matter?

Native-borne insurgencies are among the toughest of conflicts to bring to a successful resolution. The French learned this hard lesson in Vietnam and Algeria, as we learned that lesson in Vietnam. But native insurgencies can be defeated, as French Lt. Col. David Galula demonstrated in the areas under his control in Algeria, and as the British showed in the Malaysian Emergency.

Insurgencies that receive more external support than internal support are far more vulnerable to be defeated, for obvious reasons. Without internal support, foreign fighters and insurgent groups run a far greater risk of being identified, fixed, and destroyed. As a result, the current situation in Iraq is more winnable than it was a year ago.

Those critics that maintain that the war in Iraq is "lost," or that refuse to admit that al Qaeda or Iran are the key, driving forces behind the remaining Sunni and Shia militias and insurgent groups, are deluding themselves. Saying that "nothing has changed" is not only an abdication of responsibility, it is an abdication of reality.

Sunnis tribesmen engaged with al Qaeda this morning, as they have time and again and with increasing frequency over the past year as the Awakening grows. Allah's important influence aside, they are also undoubtedly switching sides because Iraq is their home, and they want to be on the winning side when this war concludes. Many have determined that the Iraqi government and their coalition allies must and will be that winning side.

Much as changed in Iraq since the Sunni Awakening began last summer.

We have a radically new strategy for fighting the war, being implemented by a new commanding general, under a new Secretary of Defense. We have crucial new allies, as tribes that formerly supported the insurgency have rebelled against it to form a new political party and re-engage in the political process, even as they hunt and kill al Qaeda. These Sunni tribes have engaged the Iraqi government and coalition troops as allies, declaring:

"We have decided that by helping you," he said, "we are helping God."

The war, it seems may be in the process of being won in Iraq in mid-2007, even as war critics declaring this war "lost" are stuck in time, in a much different Iraq War of early 2006.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (2)

April 30, 2007

Iraq War Saves Iraqi Lives?

Via Ace, something at Say Anything that qualifies as fascinating if true:

According to figures from the CIA World Factbook there are roughly 864,588 live births in Iraq every year (about 31.44 for every 1,000 citizens). In 2003 there was an infant mortality rate in Iraq of 55.16 per 1,000 births, or about 47,690 infant deaths.

In 2006 that infant mortality rate has dropped to 48.64 deaths per 1,000 births. Or about 42,503 infant deaths/year. Or about 5,187 fewer dead infants every year than in 2003.

So is it safe to say that we’ve saved roughly (and these numbers are, admittedly, very rough) 15,000 infant lives since invading Iraq? I think that would be in the ballpark.

And just think of that. 15,000 lives saved.

The anti-war folks may be quick to respond to that number with talk about the approximate 62,570 Iraqi civilians who have died in Iraq since the invasion over four years ago, a number that works out to about 15,323 dead civilians a year, but I’d point out that fewer Iraqis are dying now in the violence in Iraq than were dying under Saddam’s cruel regime.

According to this article the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled information on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s regime. That’s probably low as its just the executions we know about and it doesn’t include those who died because Saddam diverted money from the UN’s humanitarian oil-for-food program into his own coffers, but we’ll use it anyway. If we consider that Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 years, those 600,000 executions puts his yearly death toll at about 25,000/year.

So even with a conservative estimate as to the number of civilian deaths under Saddam there are still 10,000 fewer civilian deaths in that country per year now.

I think these figures and the conclusions reached are very much open for criticism, and I, for one, think Rob Port may be wrong with his figures.

Let's use another set of figures that Port chose not to use, those that estimate the numbers of Iraqis and other local regional military and civilian lives killed as a result of Saddam's two elective wars, the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, and the 1990-91 Gulf War, to get a better idea of those casualties directly attributed to Saddam's regime prior to the 2003 invasion.

After all, it hardly seems fair to factor in Iraqi casualties that were a result of our 2003 invasion, without also factoring in casualty estimates that were a result of Saddam's invasions as well.

Wikipedia notes that roughly a half million Iranians, including Iranian soldiers, militiamen, and civilians were killed or wounded as a result of Saddam's first elective war, and Iraq suffered roughly 375,000 casualties to soldiers, militias and civilians.

Hard numbers are tough to come by and may never specifically be known, but for the sake of argument, let's estimate that of the 875,000 total casualties, that 25-percent were fatalities. This gives us a rough estimate of fatalities of 218,750 for this war.

Also worth noting are the number of deaths of Iraqis that can be linked to Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and his 1991 expulsion.

Once again :Wikipedia notes that the estimates are imprecise, but that Iraqi's army probably suffered about 20,000 military casualties. The Wikipedia entry doesn't mention the Kuwaiti deaths that resulted from Saddam's invasion. I'll thrown out an even 1,000 for argument's sake, and will update if anyone can find an accurate source.

All told, combining these new figures with those compiled by Rob Port and cited above, means that Saddam is responsible for roughly 839,750 deaths, even when excluding all Coalition casualties that resulted in expelling Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991 through today.

When combat deaths resulting from his elective wars are added to his civilian executions, Saddam was responsible for about 34,990 deaths/year during his reign, not 25,000 deaths/year.

This would apparently mean that there are far more than 10,000 military and civilian lives in the region being saved per year as result of our invasion, but those numbers are open to be challenged, due to my well known personal incompatibility with anything resembling math.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:24 PM | Comments (10)

April 27, 2007

Scorched Earth

A Thomas Ricks article at the Washington Post points to an article in the Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling that blasts the failures of the general officer corps (past and present) and politicians in preparing for and fighting the Long War.

It's simply brilliant.

I strongly urge you to read the entire article, and for that matter, bookmark it, so you can return to it later.

There will be many who will read Yingling's article and attempt to spin, twist or varnish it into an attack against particular generals (active duty or retired), specific Presidents, and specific Congresses.

To do so completely misunderstands the article, and the systemic nature of the problem.

What Yingling is attempting to convey, if I understand his article correctly, is that the problems being experienced by our military in Iraq today began a half century ago. The United States was successful in World War Two because of it's ability to fight a large-scale, highly mobile, high-tech war. As a result, the general staff of the time focused on their successes and built a military for the next half century to fight that kind of war. They never learned from French failures or limited successes in Indochina or Algeria, and therefore, repeated the same failures in Vietnam. The moderate successes and lessons that should have been learned as a result of this conflict by the military and the Executive and Legislative branches were quickly discarded.

As a result, we were not on any level prepared to engage in what should have been predictable counterinsurgency operations, and did not have any competent active duty or retired general officers to advise Congress or the Executive Branch.

Yingling is careful not to blame any specific individuals, and it bears repeating that no specific individuals should be blamed. This is an institutional problem crossing several institutions, civilian and military, going back decades.

There are those tempted to use Yingling's article to attack specific individuals (as indeed, WaPo's Ricks has done, as have several bloggers so far). More journalists and bloggers more interested in the sounds of their own voices and pushing their own agendas than actually learning something, will likely continue this trend.

Sadly, it seems, Yingling may be a modern day Cassandra, offering up prophetic advice that other chose to ignore.

But as Yingling concludes, all is not lost:

This article began with Frederick the Great's admonition to his officers to focus their energies on the larger aspects of war. The Prussian monarch's innovations had made his army the terror of Europe, but he knew that his adversaries were learning and adapting. Frederick feared that his generals would master his system of war without thinking deeply about the ever-changing nature of war, and in doing so would place Prussia's security at risk. These fears would prove prophetic. At the Battle of Valmy in 1792, Frederick's successors were checked by France's ragtag citizen army. In the fourteen years that followed, Prussia's generals assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like those of the past. In 1806, the Prussian Army marched lockstep into defeat and disaster at the hands of Napoleon at Jena. Frederick's prophecy had come to pass; Prussia became a French vassal.

Iraq is America's Valmy. America's generals have been checked by a form of war that they did not prepare for and do not understand. They spent the years following the 1991 Gulf War mastering a system of war without thinking deeply about the ever changing nature of war. They marched into Iraq having assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like the wars of the past. Those few who saw clearly our vulnerability to insurgent tactics said and did little to prepare for these dangers. As at Valmy, this one debacle, however humiliating, will not in itself signal national disaster. The hour is late, but not too late to prepare for the challenges of the Long War. We still have time to select as our generals those who possess the intelligence to visualize future conflicts and the moral courage to advise civilian policymakers on the preparations needed for our security. The power and the responsibility to identify such generals lie with the U.S. Congress. If Congress does not act, our Jena awaits us.

Yingling notes that we can still prepare to win the challenges of the Long War, a war that does not stop at the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan, and will likely and necessarily (and I stress this is my interpretation, not Yingling's) include actions in the Horn of Africa, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan at a minimum.

As Americans, we have the ability and resources to adapt to nearly any contingency. It falls upon us to make sure that our leadership, military and civilian, is constructed in such a way as to be able to properly engage the public in what is undoubtedly Our Children's Children's War, whether we chose to engage in it, or not.

If any bright spot exists in Yingling's blistering article, it is that his call for the kind of general officer corps that we need has at least one present-duty officer that seems to largely (if not completely) meet his proposed standards for creativeness, intelligence, and courageousness, and that general may be at the right place, with the right skills and experience, to yet help guide a successful change in direction.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:23 AM | Comments (51)

April 26, 2007

Today's Democrats: Championing Genocide

Via Newsbusters, CNN's Michael Ware and Kyra Phillips blast Democrat plans to abandon Iraq (my bold):

...[Kiran] Chetry asked the pair "would all of us, all the American troops pulling out, help the situation?"

Phillips and Ware both loudly protested: "Oh, no! No. No way!"

Phillips zeroed in on the problems a U.S. withdrawal would cause for the Iraqis: "It would be a disaster. I mean, I had a chance to sit down with the Minister of Defense, to General Petraeus, to Admiral Fallon, head of CENTCOM. I asked them all the question whether Iraqi or U.S. military — there is no way U.S. troops could pull out. It would be a disaster. They're doing too much training, they’re helping the Iraqis not only with security, but trying to get the government up and running. I mean, this is a country of 'Let's Make a Deal,' there's so much corruption still. If the U.S. military left — they have rules of engagement, they have an idea, a focus. It would be a disaster."

Ware agreed, but argued that winning the war was in America's best interest: "Well, even more than that, if you just wanted to look at it purely in terms of American national interest, if U.S. troops leave now, you're giving Iraq to Iran, a member of President Bush's 'Axis of Evil,' and al Qaeda. That's who will own it. And so, coming back now, I'm struck by the nature of the debate on Capitol Hill, how delusional it is. Whether you're for this war, or against it; whether you've supported the way it's been executed, or not; it doesn't matter. You've broke it, you've got to fix it now. You can't leave, or it's going to come and blow back on America."

The comments made by Ware and Phillips echo those of New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns in an interview with Matt Lauer on Today from March 30 (bold in original):

LAUER: What do you think happens if there's a date certain set for that withdrawal? BURNS: If United States troops stay, there will be mounting casualties and costs for the American taxpayer. If they leave, I think from the perspective of watching this war for four years or more in Baghdad, there's no doubt that the conflict could get a great deal worse very quickly, and we'd see levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."

And later: "Most would agree there is a civil war, but a countervaling force exercised principally by Americans but also other coalition troops is a very significant factor that leaves the potential for a considerable worsening once you remove that countervaling force. . . Remove that countervaling force and then there will be no limit to this violence."

LAUER: What about this idea that if we leave, we leave behind a vacuum that other states in that region will rush to fill?

BURNS: Very difficult to tell what they would do, but of course this could come as a wake-up call to them, once they were convinced that American troops were going to withdraw and that they might get drawn in, perhaps they would get serious amongst themselves about drawing up some sort of compact to avoid that possibility, but that's purely in the realm of speculation. We really don't know what their intentions would be, but there's certainly a potential for regional conflict.

As I stated March 8:

It is expected that the power vacuum left by a Democrat-forced American military retreat from Iraq would be filled by foreign nations fueling a sectarian war in Iraq that would be both civil and proxy in nature. Saudi Arabia has made clear their intention to provide military and financial resources to Iraq's Sunni minority to hopefully keep their co-religionists from being "ethnically cleansed," while Iran would continue or increase its military and financial support of Shia factions in hopes of gaining a sphere of influence over oil-rich southern Iraq.

The end result of the Democrat plan of defeat would be a war-torn landscape not too dissimilar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War, writ large.

A repeat of events like the Srebrenica massacre are possible in Iraq's future if Democrats have their way.

Democrats, of course, know this, but simply seem to find political games in America far more important than the regional destabilization and projected increase in civilian deaths their plan for defeat would bring.

...

Sadly, the millions of Iraqi civilians that would suffer as a result of their plan for defeat don't matter nearly as much to Democrat politicians.

Iraqi children won't send out important action alerts over frappacinos, or fund presidential campaigns in either America. It isn't their grandchildren that will suffer and die if we leave before the job is done.

The Democrats won't mention the cost of pandering to their radical base.

Apparently the one thing too shameful to discuss is the legacy they would leave behind.

I was brought up believing that the United States was a champion for liberty and freedom around the world.

Today's Democrats obviously disagree, and instead, advocate a disasterous failed state, potential regional war, and possible genocide.

At least one former Democrat understands how wrong that is.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:05 AM | Comments (97)

April 24, 2007

White Flag Harry Reid: We're Losing This War, and the Troops are Liars

"Senator Lost" Harry Reid, has unilaterally declared that the Iraq War is lost. Uh, Senator... how would you know and other top Democrats know, when you continue to skip briefings?

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.

Reid even labeled General David Petraeus a liar:

BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress.

He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts.

Look at the facts, Harry? You refuse to address the facts.

Here are a few comments for "Senator Lost" from men on the ground.

From a letter to Op-for:

We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don't know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA's and IP's in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus' strategy is just getting started and we're seeing huge gains here.

However, you don't see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn't bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.

I suppose Reid considers this soldier a liar as well.

What does he think about Sgt. Turkovich, from his own state of Nevada?

"We're not losing this war."

That's how a Las Vegas Army Reserve sergeant and Iraq war veteran who is heading out again for Operation Iraqi Freedom reacted Friday to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid's assessment that the war in Iraq is "lost."

"I don't believe the war is lost," Sgt. George Turkovich, 24, said as he stood with other soldiers near a shipping container that had been packed for their deployment to Kuwait.

The soldiers leave today for a six-week training stint at Camp Atterbury, Ind., before heading overseas to run a camp in support of the war effort. It is uncertain if their yearlong tour will take them to Iraq.

"Unfortunately, politics has taken a huge role in this war affecting our rules of engagement," said Turkovich, a 2001 Palo Verde High School graduate. "This is a guerrilla war that we're fighting, and they're going to tie our hands.

"So it does make it a lot harder for us to fight the enemy, but we're not losing this war," he said.

Turkovich's commander, Lt. Col. Steven Cox:

"I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the American people would leave their military dangling in the wind the way the good senator is doing," Cox said.

"Defeatism ... from our elected officials does not serve us well in the field," he said. "They embolden the enemy, and they actually leave them with the feeling that they can defeat us and win this.

"All they have to do is wait us out because the American resolve is waning," he said.

Cox said he's "not sure the senator accurately echoes the people he represents. ... I believe his tactics are more of shock in trying to sway public opinion. He may have spoken out of turn."

Obviously, these brave soldiers are liars, right Senator Reid?

But we're not done just yet.

Marine Corporal Tyler Rock, currently in Ramadi, was a bit more direct in his criticism:

yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or at least the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP's voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA's. it sucks that iraqi's have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say "hey thats not nice" again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.

1st Lt, Matthew McGirr, another Ramadi Marine, agrees and offers a blistering response of his own:

We are reaching a tipping point in this fight. We have finally learned this culture. We have finally begun to commit the necessary forces. We have truly learned to fight a counter-insurgency. Very real gains are being made despite claims from our Congress that we have already lost. A counter-insurgency battle is not one of quickly attained and easily recognizeable benchmarks. It is not won in a year or four. It takes time, resolve, and a willingness to use what we have learned from past mistakes and expectations. From firsthand experience I can tell you, this "Surge" is working. We need to continue to support these people and give them a fighting chance at creating a nation on their own terms.

To echo the sentiments of my fellow Marine in 1/6, the reality of what is happening on the ground in places like Ramadi is not being reported to the American public. The pundits and politicians on both sides do not fully grasp the conditions on the ground here. They are arrogantly and irresponsibly using this war and the troops who fight in it for political gain and election currency. They manipulate the truth or do not care enough to seek it out. At least I know where I stand with the citizens of Ar Ramadi.

"At least I know where I stand with the citizens of Ar Ramadi."

Ouch. Do Democrat leaders support the troops?

The troops sure don't seem to think so, and they're more than likely right.

Update: Blackfive has an excellent post on how counter-insurgency works called COIN: The Gravity Well. It's a must-read.

Allah now has the Reid video up at HotAir, which turns one today.

Update: JD Johannes reports that indeed, "the war may be over and we just don't realize it" in parts of al Anbar.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (33)

April 20, 2007

An Axis of Embarrassment: Saddam's WMD Bunkers Found?

Via Lucianne, just another crazed conspiracy theorist:

Mr Gaubatz verbally told the Iraq Study Group (ISG) of his findings, and asked them to come with heavy equipment to breach the concrete of the bunkers and uncover their sealed contents. But to his consternation, the ISG told him they didn’t have the manpower or equipment to do it and that it would be 'unsafe' to try.

'The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south,' says Mr Gaubatz. 'They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them that if they didn't excavate these sites, others would.'

That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learnt from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran.

When Mr Gaubatz returned to the US, he tried to bring all this to light. Two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, were keen to follow up his account. To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports, they were told that all 60 of them — which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US airbase in Saudi Arabia — had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG.

One theory is that they were inadvertently destroyed when the computer's database was accidentally erased in the subsequent US evacuation of the airbase. Mr Gaubatz, however, suspects dirty work at the crossroads. It is unlikely, he says, that no copies were made of his intelligence. And he says that all attempts by Messrs Hoekstra and Weldon to extract information from the Defence Department and CIA have been relentlessly stonewalled.

In 2005, the CIA held a belated inquiry into the disappearance of this intelligence. Only then did its agents visit the sites — to report that they had indeed been looted.

Hoekstra, the CIA, and now this nut Gaubatz... who is he, anyway?

The problem the US authorities have is that they can't dismiss Mr Gaubatz as a rogue agent — because they have repeatedly decorated him for his work in the field. In 2003, he received awards for his 'courage and resolve in saving lives and being critical for information flow'. In 2001, he was decorated for being the 'lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defence' and because his 'reports were such high quality, many were published in the Air Force's daily threat product for senior USAF leaders or re-transmitted at the national level to all security agencies in US government'.

What a loon. No credibility at all.

And he poses an interesting delimma, if correct:

The Republicans won't touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won't touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

Quite true.

Should this Gaubatz guy, ISG and DIA supervisor Ray Robinson and other decorated "nutters" be correct, then Dubya is shown to be even more incompetent than both Democrats and Republicans have ever dared fear, and yet, Democrats couldn't call him on it, because they would have to admit he was right to topple Saddam in the first place, and they might have to back up that fact by confronting Syria... probably with "important action alerts."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:54 PM | Comments (61)

April 17, 2007

Iranian Weapons Intercepted On the Way To the Taliban

Well, it looks like the mullacracy is willing to supply just about any insurgency, doesn't it?

U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons intended for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday, suggesting wider Iranian war involvement in the region.

It appeared to be the first publicly disclosed instance of Iranian arms entering Afghanistan, although it was not immediately clear whether the weapons came directly from Iran or were shipped through a third party.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that unlike in Iraq, where U.S. officials say they are certain that arms are being supplied to insurgents by Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Iranian link in Afghanistan is murky.

"It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Pace told a group of reporters over breakfast.

He said the weapons, including mortars and C-4 plastic explosives, were intercepted in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan within the past month. He did not describe the quantity of intercepted materials or say whether it was the first time American forces had found Iranian-made arms in that country.

If accurate, this seems to throw cold water on claims that Iran wouldn't support Sunni groups as willingly as they would Shiite militias.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:25 PM | Comments (11)

April 13, 2007

Continuing to Cry Defeat

I must thank blog aggregator Memeorandum this morning for providing this link about the latest Charles Krauthammer column, which in turn, led to a Melanie Phillips blog entry highlighting key points of a Fouad Ajami editorial, Iraq in the Balance.

Among the subjects the Ajami essay touches upon are the long history of Sunni and Shia animosity, the failure of salvation for the Sunni insurgency, and the distrust of Iranian-backed Shia militias as Iraq enters what Ajami calls the "final, decisive phase":

There is a growing Shia unease with the Mahdi Army--and with the venality and incompetence of the Sadrists represented in the cabinet--and an increasing faith that the government and its instruments of order are the surer bet. The crackdown on the Mahdi Army that the new American commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has launched has the backing of the ruling Shia coalition. Iraqi police and army units have taken to the field against elements of the Mahdi army. In recent days, in the southern city of Diwaniyya, American and Iraqi forces have together battled the forces of Moqtada al-Sadr. To the extent that the Shia now see Iraq as their own country, their tolerance for mayhem and chaos has receded. Sadr may damn the American occupiers, but ordinary Shia men and women know that the liberty that came their way had been a gift of the Americans.

The young men of little education--earnest displaced villagers with the ways of the countryside showing through their features and dialect and shiny suits--who guarded me through Baghdad, spoke of old terrors, and of the joy and dignity of this new order. Children and nephews and younger brothers of men lost to the terror of the Baath, they are done with the old servitude. They behold the Americans keeping the peace of their troubled land with undisguised gratitude. It hasn't been always brilliant, this campaign waged in Iraq. But its mistakes can never smother its honor, and no apology for it is due the Arab autocrats who had averted their gaze from Iraq's long night of terror under the Baath.


...

One can never reconcile the beneficiaries of illegitimate, abnormal power to the end of their dominion. But this current re-alignment in Iraq carries with it a gift for the possible redemption of modern Islam among the Arabs. Hitherto Sunni Islam had taken its hegemony for granted and extremist strands within it have shown a refusal to accept "the other." Conversely, Shia history has been distorted by weakness and exclusion and by a concomitant abdication of responsibility.
A Shia-led state in Baghdad--with a strong Kurdish presence in it and a big niche for the Sunnis--can go a long way toward changing the region's terrible habits and expectations of authority and command. The Sunnis would still be hegemonic in the Arab councils of power beyond Iraq, but their monopoly would yield to the pluralism and complexity of that region.

"Watch your adjectives" is the admonition given American officers by Gen. Petraeus. In Baghdad, Americans and Iraqis alike know that this big endeavor has entered its final, decisive phase. Iraq has surprised and disappointed us before, but as they and we watch our adjectives there can be discerned the shape of a new country, a rough balance of forces commensurate with the demography of the place and with the outcome of a war that its erstwhile Sunni rulers had launched and lost. We made this history and should now make our peace with it.

Without any shred of a doubt, we are in the final, decisive phase of this war.

The "surge" of American troops into Iraq only half-begun as part of Commanding General David Petraeus' counter-insurgency doctrine will be the final major push of American forces into the Iraq theater. With the success of the surge, the stabilization of Iraq means that American forces should be able to start drawing down in victory. If the surge does not work, the American public will be able to elect a President in 2008 that will bring our troops home in defeat. Either way, the surge represents America's endgame, for better or worse.

Based upon the success of French Lt. Col. David Galula's counter-insurgency efforts in Algeria, General Petraeus literally wrote the book on American counter-insurgency, Army Field Manual FM3-24 (PDF).

The Baghdad security plan, expanding to other parts of Iraq, comes at a time when al Qaeda has lost support in its former base of al Anbar province, where Sunni tribes once loyal to al Qaeda have turned against it. Within the past months, Sunni tribesmen that have recently joined the Iraqi police and military by the hundreds and thousands have fought pitched battles that al Qaeda has invariably lost, and the Sunni supporters of al Qaeda in Iraq are continuing to fracture, as noted as recently as yesterday.

As Krauthammer states in his recent op-ed with a nod to Ajami:

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.

Meanwhile, John Wixted points out that the media-declared "civil war" in Iraq is not a civil war:

Again, these Sunni insurgent groups are unhappy (not happy) with al Qaeda for indiscriminately slaughtering Shiite civilians in Iraq. How does that fit into the "civil war" schema? Answer: it doesn't. Think about the Tal Afar bombing again, the one that you thought was just part of the cycle of violence in a escalating civil war between Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. There is just one tiny little problem with that superficial analysis: the major Sunni insurgent groups are extremely displeased with bombings like that. That being the case, you should now be able to appreciate the fact that, contrary to the standard analysis, the Tal Afar bombing (like many similar bombings) was not carried out by Sunni insurgents in their civil war against Shiites. Instead, those bombings represent al Qaeda in action. They are, in effect, counterattacks in our war on terror, not retaliatory strikes in a civil war.

The Sunni insurgents have come to realize that al Qaeda is not helping them in their fight against American troops. Instead, al Qaeda is trying to provoke a civil war, which benefits al Qaeda alone. That is, al Qaeda is trying to get Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army to once again start executing Sunnis in Baghdad. That's why the Sunni insurgents are not happy. They have no interest in a civil war because it does not benefit them in any way. They want al Qaeda to help fight the Americans, and that's what al Qaeda was doing for a while. It's what George Bush wanted al Qaeda to do as well (at least I suspect as much). But al Qaeda came up with a fiendish alternative plan, and it has been amazingly effective up until now. Predictably, in response to al Qaeda's repeated atrocities against Shiite civilians, most Americans and all Democratic politicians think they are watching a civil war unfold in Iraq and have become demoralized as a result (just as al Qaeda knew they would -- it's always that way with the weak-willed America).

[snip]

All of this should also serve to update your thinking about Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, which, contrary to what you might believe, was killing Sunnis in Baghdad in an effort to stop those atrocities being carried out by al Qaeda against Shiite civilians. But now the Mahdi Army is cooperating with the troop surge, so those executions have come way down. Perhaps Muqtada realized that he was just playing into al Qaeda's hands (and the truth is, he was).

Unfortunately, last month, al Qaeda successfully slaughtered many hundreds of Shiites, and that increase in violence offset the decrease in violence by the Mahdi Army, so overall civilian casualties in Iraq remained essentially unchanged. However, the fact that the Sunni insurgency is beginning to resist al Qaeda, and the fact that they have even implored Osama bin Laden to call off attacks against civilians by al Qaeda in Iraq could be highly significant. If the Mahdi Army continues to cooperate (and all signs suggest that they will despite the Tal Afar bombing) and if al Qaeda can be induced to stop slaughtering civilians, then the troop surge will be seen as a resounding success because civilian casualties will come way down.

In short, Sunni tribes former aligned with al Qaeda are turning against them and joining the Iraqi military and police forces by the thousands. At the same time, Shia militias are staying their hands (for the most part), while the more militant offshoots of the Madhi Army are being either rounded up or shot down as are their Sunni opposites.

All in all, there is a picture beginning to emerge that shows the more radical and divisive elements of both the Sunni and Shia sects are slowly but steadily being whittled away. Sunnis and Shias formerly loyal to al Qaeda or al Sadr quietly melt away, inform on their former allies, or actively join forces with the Coalition and Iraqi government. These extremists that now only exist to cause terror in a fractured nation tiring of war, are losing.

Aligned against these growing signs of progress, we once again encounter our ever-present enemy... Democrats:

A memo from a top House Democrat says party leaders must not yield to White House pressure on Iraq and should cast President Bush as increasingly detached from public opinion.

Bush has said he will not negotiate with Democrats on legislation that would finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September if it sets an end date for the Iraq war. Holding only a narrow majority in Congress, Democrats do not have enough votes to override the president's veto.

In a memo to party leaders, Rep. Rahm Emanuel says that as long as Democrats continue to ratchet up the pressure on Bush, the president loses ground.

Like many Democrats, Emanuel shows that in his eyes, the real enemy in the War on Terror (a name, I'd add, Democrats are cravenly trying to change) is American President George W. Bush, not al Qaeda terrorists or Shia militiamen.

The gathering signs of progress in Iraq means that the window of opportunity to claim a "victory" for Democrats—a headlong retreat and possible genocide that could result from a too quick withdrawal before Iraq is stabilized, which they would then attempt to pin on Bush—is closing.

If signs of progress continue to cautiously crop up in Iraq, the media-determined and Democrat-supported narrative of defeat may slowly begin to fall away, which is the worst possible situation for Democrats.

Should the surge continue to prove effective and Iraqis continue towards a path towards a reconciliation and a fair division of assets among the sects, it is not hard to see that public opinion will begin to turn against the liberal Democrat leadership, who have done all that is within their power to lose the war. Nobody likes someone who cheers against the home team, especially if the home team(s) rallies to win.

Only time will tell if the "rally" in Iraq is successful, but that is a chance Democrat leaders such as Emanuel, Reid, and Pelosi aren't will to take, and why they endeavor to lose Iraq by forfeit.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (18)

Screening Outside the Wire

The Washington State University Young Republicans screened Outside the Wire by JD Johannes, a former Marine, who joined the Marinesbecause:

... JD Johannes did not study hard or take his secondary education seriously, because he came from a rural, midwestern town, and because he had no other opportunities, Johannes was easily conned into joining the Marines by a high-pressure salesman in Dress Blues.

Just like U.S. Senator John Kerry said, JD Johannes got stuck in Iraq.

A synopsis of the screening is recounted on palousitics, including some barbed comments at Democrats who tried to upstage both the movie and the Iraq war veterans that were to address the audience and take questions after the film.

The young democrats expressed vivid interest in expressing opinions and produce questions to us, the WSU College Republicans. Dan Ryder and I articulated to the young democrats that no such exchange would take place in any shape or form. I was unequivocal in expressing that this documentary should leave you to derive your own opinions of the troops/war and that the WSU College Republicans did not feel qualified in hosting questions. After all, we did not serve in Iraq.

The young democrats "staged" a walkout upon hearing our truthful and legitimate response. This was a display upon epic proportions of the infantile demeanor of such a group that preaches the freedom of expression, ideas, opinions, etc. Their actions were pusillanimous in nature and a flat out slap in the face to the attendees, our organization, our great country and more acutely speaking, the Veterans of our brave service men and women present. They are a sickening disgrace. A classic display of uncouth trash.

The quote of the day, however, goes to one of the Iraq War veterans during a Q&A session after the screening to a question that was never asked.

One question that never came up was "can you support the troops if you don’t support the war?" After the question and answer session ended a Vet replied, "Absolutely not, how can you support someone if you don't support what he or she is doing?"

I've wondered about that same question myself, and have yet to hear what I would consider a reasonable answer.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | Comments (9)

April 12, 2007

Meanwhile, in the Other War...

I think the casualty figures are probably inflated, but the overall impact is still worth noting:

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday that tribesmen have killed about 300 foreign militants during a weekslong offensive near the Afghan border and acknowledged for first time that they received military support.

The fighting that began last month in South Waziristan has targeted mainly Uzbek militants with links to al-Qaida who have sheltered in the tribal region since escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.

"The people of South Waziristan now have risen against the foreigners. They have killed about 300 of them, and they got support from the Pakistan army. They asked for support," Musharraf said in a speech at a military conference in Islamabad.

This amounts to a stronger enemy force killing off a weaker enemy force, and not something that I'd necessarily say is worth celebrating. However, if enough Taliban tribesmen and al Qaeda-linked militants kill each other, it might bleed their enthusiasm to take their jihad to NATO forces in Afghanistan for the time being.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:25 PM | Comments (1)

Smoking Kills

Mike Yon reports from within a British Army assault on al Sadr-alligned Shia militia forces, a fight that saw 26-27 militiamen killed and 4,000 rounds of ammunition expended.

The British forces suffered no wounded, at least until after the battle was well over....

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:04 PM | Comments (1)

April 10, 2007

Democrat Iraq War Grandstanding Angers Veterans' Groups

Both the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and American Legion have issued statements hammering a Democrat Congress that continues to play games with Iraq War funding.

From the VFW:

"The funding package contained artificial troop withdrawal deadlines that would ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety," said Lisicki, who ascends to national commander in August and was here today to host a meeting of future leaders from the VFW’s 54 departments.

"I am calling on all the members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to, for now, reserve further debate and provide the funds needed by our troops to prosecute the Global War on Terror," he said, noting that Iraq was clearly the centerpiece of that war on terrorism, and that the House and the Senate funding packages were also loaded with extraneous spending not related to the war on terrorism.

"This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue. It's about American men and women tasked with fighting a war, and who are now being told their effort and sacrifice doesn't matter because a date on the calendar will send them home whether they've finished the job or not," he said.

Lisicki, Vietnam veteran from Carteret, N.J., said that when Congress reconvenes, they need to approve funding for war-related requirements only, and debate the other issues in separate legislation.

"We ask Congress to never cut or withhold funding for troops deployed or being deployed to a war zone," he said. "They must ensure that those who are sent to war have the best equipment and our strongest support. Give them the tools necessary to complete the mission you sent them on, and do it without further delay."

From the American Legion:

"This is an attempt to implement a congressional strategy by imposing timelines for the withdrawal of military personnel from combat zones through a "slow bleed" process by eventually reducing military funding," Morin said. "Rather than the President's and General Petraeus's reinforcement policy that is making progress in securing Baghdad."

The American Legion is supportive of many of the other provisions contained in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, but we strongly believe the President's initial request is not the vehicle for these provisions, especially the specific language that sets congressional deadlines and mandatory troops movements. The other emergency funding recommendations to the FY 2007 budget should be openly addressed in a subsequent appropriations package in a timely manner.

"The men and women of the armed forces in the theater of operation are dependent on this emergency funding to sustain and achieve their military missions," Morin explained. "Members of Congress should not be armchair generals."

"Recognizing our history as a Nation, The American Legion supports the Commander in Chief, the commanders on the front lines, and the men and women serving in harms' way," Morin said. "We entrust Congress to do the right thing in supporting our military men and women who are fighting to protect our values and way of life.

Thank God there was no mandated timetable after the Battle of the Bulge or Iwo Jima. Thank God, there was no mandated withdrawal or imposed exit strategy at Valley Forge or our Country would have lost the American Revolution."

In addition to these veterans groups, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael G. Mullen, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Marine Commandant Gen. James T. Conway have also issued a letter imploring the Democrat Congress to quit playing games with the funding of our soldiers:

"Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the armed services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain combat operations," the four general and flag officers wrote in their letter. "The impacts on readiness and quality of life could be profound. We will have to implement spending restrictions and reprogram billions of dollars."
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | Comments (4)

The Stories They Don't Tell

As is typically the case for many media organizations in Iraq, CNN this morning chose a lede for their Iraq coverage focusing on the day's body count:

In two separate incidents, bombers in Iraq targeted a college district in Baghdad and a police recruiting center in Diyala province killing at least 15 people on Tuesday, local authorities told CNN.

Meanwhile, coalition forces pounded insurgent targets across Iraq on Tuesday, the military said. They launched raids in Anbar, in the west of the country, and Baghdad and continued their Operation Black Eagle push that began last week against Shiite militias in the southern city of Diwaniya.

That effort so far has killed 14 people and wounded 61 others, among them Shiite militia members, an Interior Ministry official told CNN.

This is hardly surprising. Body counts provide concrete numbers, even if those numbers don't tell the entire story of a war that they and other media outlets determined long ago was already lost. Sadly, this reliance on body counts tells only a fraction of the story of the events taking place in Iraq.

Five paragraphs into the story, we get a hint as to another part of the story of the Iraq War, one that they chose not to cover in detail.

Dressed in a black abaya -- a traditional Muslim robe, usually black in color, covering the body from head to toe -- the woman detonated her explosives belt in a crowd of about 200 police recruits, police and hospital officials told the Associated Press.

The police recruiting center targeted by this suicide bomber in Muqdadiya is located in the Diyala province, where insurgents have fled from security operations in Baghdad.

Iraqi police typically suffer far greater casualties than either Iraqi or American military units, and yet two hundred Iraqis were lined up to join.

Joining the Iraqi police is the most dangerous occupation in Iraq, with the IP suffering greater casualties day in and day out than either the American or Iraqi militaries. Iraqis who join the police not only take immense personal risks; their families are often targeted for retaliation by terrorists as well. It is far safer to remain civilian and avoid these risks... and yet they join, not just in Diyala, but in Ramadi, Karbala, Baghdad, and Fallujah.

Why do they join?

The answers will certainly vary from recruit to recruit, from province to province and from city to village, but the fact remains that they continue to join the most dangerous job in Iraq in large numbers.

It would be nice for CNN, the Associated Press, and other news outlets to spend some time asking these recruits why they take such risks not only with their own lives, but with the lives of their families.

Are they militiamen looking to infiltrate the police? Are they simply tired of the random violence that threatens their families and hoping to stop it? Are they merely looking for work, any work, no matter how dangerous that work may be? Do they actually think that joining the police might help bring stability to their war-torn cities and towns?

We do not know.

It is far easier for the media to ask the simple questions of who died where, and provide copy about orchestrated protests, or produce photos of suffering and death. "If it bleeds, it leads," has been, and continues to be, the mantra of a news media interested in covering only the obvious and superficial sotires of the day.

The deeper, inner struggles, the jihad of ordinary Iraqis who purposefully take extraordinary risks, goes unremarked upon... and still they come by tens and hundreds, from across Iraq. They join the police and don uniforms, knowing that doing so makes them certain targets.

I'd like to know why, but no one seems interested in telling their stories.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | Comments (1)

April 07, 2007

What's Next, Reid and bin Laden?

From the murderous dictators of terrorist-sponsoring regimes to Islamist leaders themselves:

A top U.S. Democratic congressman met a leader of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's most powerful rival, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, U.S. officials and the Islamist group said Saturday.

Visiting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with the head of the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, twice on Thursday -- once at the parliament building and then at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, said Brotherhood spokesman Hamdi Hassan.

Most of you are probably not that familiar with el-Katatni, who believes in restoring the caliphate and instituting fundementalist sharia law, but you are certainly more familiar with another Muslim Brotherhood alumnus named Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's cavemate.

Nice folks the Democrat leadership is spending time with these days.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:52 PM | Comments (2)

April 06, 2007

Speaker of the Big House

Logan Act, anyone?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Nominating Patrick Fitzgerald to pursue this investigation is not, of course, within the WSJ's power, but it is an excellent suggestion all the same.

The author Robert F. Turner notes that it is quite possible that Pelosi's actions violate not just federal law (and a felony at that), but may have violated her oath of office as well.

Interestingly enough, President Bush tried to keep Pelosi from making this mistake. It's a shame she didn't have enough sense to listen.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:16 PM | Comments (30)

New DOD Report Indicates No Ties Between Saddam and al Qaeda; New e-Book Indicates Just the Opposite

I QUESTION THE TIMING!

The Washington Post has an article posted this morning by R. Jeffery Smith that seems to put to rest allegations that Saddam Hussein's government was directly in contact with al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Interestingly, the release of this report came on the same day that Vice President Dick Cheney repeated allegations of cooperation:

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, whom he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Folks, unless the Veep has information I don't (which is quite possible), he is possibly conflating two things here.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was a terrorist operating in Iraq by late 2001, and that he was well established prior to the 2003 invasion. There is also no doubt at all that he shared the same radical Sunni Islamist philosophy as al Qaeda. What does not seem to be supported by the report is Zarqawi's direct contact with al Qaeda prior to the 2003 invasion.

But one thing the report does apparently reinforce is that Saddam Hussein did have ties to other terror groups, which Smith glosses over (my bold):

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

But is the DOD report accurate?

As we well know, millions of documents were captured after the fall of the Iraqi government, and the overwhelming majority of those documents have yet to be translated, thanks to the rise of the insurgency in Iraq. U.S. intelligence assets have always been extremely thin in regards to Arab translators, and those translators we do have are being used--and rightfully so--in active intelligence operations, not the historical review of documents from a regime that no longer exists. It is simply a matter of priorities.

But while U.S. military assets are correctly focused on current intelligence exploitation, a former member of the Iraq Study Group and his co-authors has gone though the documentation released by DOD, and has come to a vastly different series of conclusions, published in a new e-book, Both In One Trench: Saddam's Support to the Global Jihad Movement and International Terrorism.

I have a review copy of the book and I'm just starting on it, but if Robinson, Dunaway and al-Hadir are correct, then there may be reason to doubt the accuracy of the DOD report, not because DOD is being deceptive in any way, but simply because they are working from limited data that results from their assets being needed elsewhere.

Some of the bombshell conclusions published in the book are stunning:

The Saddam regime supported Islamic terrorists the same as it supported other ‘secular’ terrorists. The key to understanding this issue is the logical distinction between working with Islamic extremists to achieve mutual objectives outside of Iraq versus having them exist uncontrolled inside Iraq. Saddam’s regime was “open for business” to leaders from al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Hamas, Afghani warlords and other Islamic extremist organizations.

2. Documents provide strong evidence that Saddam was the instigator and ultimate mastermind behind the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. They also provide evidence to suspect that Saddam was complicit in the Millennium Plot as executed by al Qaeda against the United States. Furthermore, documents reveal what may be foreknowledge by Saddam of the American anthrax attack that occurred within days of 9/11.

3. Saddam was in material breach of UN resolutions. The authorization from Congress for the use of force in Iraq was based largely on the failure of the Saddam regime to comply with its obligations under agreement to the UN. This fact is salient; the Saddam regime was in a state of noncompliance. WMD, while a significant part of the argument before the war, was never the sole justification despite cynical attempts by historical revisionists to portray it as the only justification provided by the Bush Administration.

4. Saddam corrupted mightily. He used pacifists, leftists, and even environmentalists to spread his propaganda. His intelligence agencies claimed to have sources all over the world in sensitive organizations, including the UN and the American media.

5. There are indications of activities in Iraq that we cannot make full determination on at this time, but which raise interesting questions. While we cannot make conclusions, we will pass the relevant information to the reader who may draw his or her own conclusions. For instance, a report by a respected journalist about a claim of an Iraqi underground nuclear test that happened in the late 1980’s appears to have sparked concern within the Saddam regime. The internal memorandum shows active steps to conceal evidence related to the story.

6. For the sake of history we make the startling revelation that during President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address, a spy for Saddam Hussein sat with the First Lady, Laura Bush. It should be noted that it was practically impossible to know this, and at the time the man was a leader of the Afghan reform movement that supported the overthrow of the Taliban.

Does the evidence support the allegations made by the authors? If so, does the documentation captured in Iraq provide the documentary evidence to justify the Iraq War?

At 200+ pages, this book promises to be an interesting read. If the conclusions made are supported, it may just be the most important book released since the beginning of the War On Terror.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | Comments (17)

April 04, 2007

SecDef Gates Confronts Reid Surrender Plan

Democrat Harry Reid has already stated his opinion that the Iraqi War is "is not worth another drop of American blood," making me wonder just how much Iraqi blood may spill from Iraqi if his plan for defeat is implemented.

According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, quite a lot:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday warned that limiting troops' activities in Iraq and withdrawing from Baghdad could lead to "ethnic cleansing" in the capital and elsewhere in the country.

Gates' comment followed a proposal from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to end most spending on the Iraq war in 2008, limiting it to targeted operations against al Qaeda, training for Iraqi troops and U.S. force protection.

"One real possibility is if we abandon some of these areas and withdraw into the countryside or whatever to do these targeted missions that you could have a fairly significant ethnic cleansing inside Baghdad and in Iraq more broadly," Gates said.

"What we do know is if Baghdad is in flames and the whole city is engulfed in violence, the prospects for a political solution are almost nonexistent," he said on the Laura Ingraham syndicated radio program.

Gates is saying that the Democrat plan will most likely lead to genocide, a conclusion others have reached as well.

The preferred Democrat solution of a mindless retreat all but promises an escalation according to New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns, that could result in "levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."

For all their rhetoric, those who claim to be anti-war certainly seem driven to create violence and bloodshed virtually without limits.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:38 PM | Comments (14)

War Song

While the rest of the world seems focused on Iranian promises to free 15 British sailors kidnapped 1.5 miles inside Iraqi waters, former pro-Taliban tribesmen are pushing forward with what they say is a final offensive to crush foreign al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal region.

The fighting against entrenched Uzbek, Chechen and Arab positions is intense:

Tribesmen stormed a bunker manned by foreign militants early on Wednesday and killed 11 Uzbeks and captured another 14, residents said, citing the tribal forces.

"Soon after morning prayers there was a heavy sound of war drums and tribesmen were seen leaving in different directions amid shouts of 'Allahu Akhbar' (God is Greatest) and 'Victory, victory, victory'," Malik Sangeen Khan, a resident of the region's main town of Wana, said.

"Since this morning there have been massive sounds of rockets and gunfire. It is louder even than the Pakistani military operations here in 2004."

It seems rather pathetic that the Musharraf government is claiming these battles vindicate his 2006 peace accord, a deal which effectively ceded Waziristan to Taliban and al Qaeda forces after Pakistan's Army suffered heavy losses in the area in 2004-2006.

I don't think anyone could have easily predicted this red-on-red conflict between former allies, but as long as Taliban and al Qaeda loyalists continue to kill each other instead of staging incursions into Afghanistan, very few people outside of Waziristan are likely to complain.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:59 PM | Comments (1)

A Thousand Words of Subservience

MIDEAST SYRIA US PELOSI

As noted by blogger Paul Geary at The New Editor last night (h/t Instapundit), Nancy Pelosi is raising hackles for deciding to cover her head while visiting (against the President's advice) the capital city of Damascus, Syria, to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Up to 90% of the foreign suicide bombers in Iraq filter through Syria. Assad himself threatened former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri just months before Hariri was assassinated, and Syria's government—perhaps Assad himself—is suspected of having a hand in the murder.

Bush was correct in noting that Pelosi's trip only encourages a well-known state sponsor of terror. Republicans Joe Pitts (PA), Frank Wolf (VA) and Robert Aderholt (AL) also held meetings this past week with Assad that should be condemned, as have Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Bill Nelson (D-FL) Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Arlen Specter (R-PA) over the past few months.

All of these Congressmen and Senators should be rebuked for their actions, which lend credibility to a murderous regime, and I do mean all of them, Democrat and Republican. They do not represent, nor can they negotiate, the foreign policy of the United States.

But Pelosi, just a pretzel and a Big Mac away from the Presidency, and the highest ranking member of Congress as Speaker of the House, deserves special scrutiny for her actions.

While all of these trips were inadvisable, Pelosi's position lends credibility to a state that sponsors several major terrorist groups, terrorists that have killed hundreds of American servicemen, and who have killed hundreds of our allies. Pelosi's defiant trip is a thumb to the eye of U.S. foreign policy, one that sets a horrible precedent.

I am unaware of any Speaker of the House in this nation's history that has visited an antagonistic power while our military was engaged in combat. It is the equivalent of Speaker Sam Rayburn visiting China in the late summer of 1950 during the Korean War.

Make no mistake: Pelosi's trip undercuts our servicemen that are currently fighting against terrorists in Iraq that come through Syria with a wink and a nod. This trip is a propaganda coup that will be used by Syria, the terrorists they sponsor, and Islamists worldwide.

Notes Geary:

This picture disgusts me. What message is Nancy Pelosi trying to send? Are women equal to men, or not? Why is modesty foisted only upon women? That's the inconvenient truth for conservative Muslims, and for liberal Americans trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to reconcile the desire for understanding between cultures, and those cultures' starkly illiberal practices.

While her term as Speaker is only months old, the image above may very well become the defining visual image associated with Pelosi’s Speakership: the most powerful woman in American politics donning a scarf in deference to Islamic practice, knowing full well the symbolism that act carried.

Pelosi donned the head covering while visiting the Ommayad Mosque in Damascus, a move that will be correctly interpreted by Muslims around the world as a nod to the subservience of women as noted in the Koran, in Surah an-Nur ayah 31:

'Wa qul li al-mu'minat yaghdudna min absarihinna wa yahfathna furujahunna wa laa yubdina zenatahunna illa maa thahara min haa wal-yadribna bi khumurihinna ala juyubihinna; wa laa yubdina zenatahunna illa li bu'ulatihinna aw aba'ihinna aw aba'i bu'ulatihinna aw abna'ihinna aw abna'i bu'ulatihinna aw ikhwanihinna aw bani ikhwanihinna aw bani akhawatihinna aw nisa'ihinna aw maa malakat aymanuhunna aw at-tabi'ina ghayri ulu'l-irbat min ar-rijal aw at-tifl allathina lam yathharu ala awrat an-nisa wa laa yadribna bi arjulihinna li yu'lama maa yukhfina min zenatahinna. Wa tubu ilaAllahi jami'an, ayyuha al-mu'minun la'allakum tuflihun'

And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful.

Her scarf will be interpreted as a hijab or khimar, which indeed its purpose in her visit to Ommayad. The symbolism of the photo was easy to predict in advance, and easily avoidable by simply changing her itinerary. Instead, Nancy Peolosi disgraced herself, her position, the Congress and the United States, and certainly not least of all, women who seek equality around the world.

Get used to seeing this image. It will dog Pelosi until the end of her days in office.


Update: Even more pathetic than I thought. Pelosi couldn't even deliver a simple message correctly.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:31 AM | Comments (17)

April 03, 2007

No Global War on Terror Here

An Iraqi Sunni insurgent group calling itself the "Arrows of Righteousness" holding two German hostages has given the German government 10 more days to withdrawn their soldiers from Afghanistan.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:36 PM | Comments (1)

Lesson Unlearned

"This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

--Winston Churchill, Harrow School, 29 October 1941

Oh, how the mighty have fallen:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Iran on Tuesday that his government would have to take increasingly tough decisions if 15 captive sailors are not quickly released.

Iran captured 15 of Britain's sailors and marines and then paraded them in front of cameras repeatedly for propaganda purposes in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners, and all Blair can muster are more empty, spineless rhetoric.

John Derbyshire takes the deliberately provacative stance that:

I certainly think that those British captives who have let themselves be put forward on Iranian TV, that woman wearing a headscarf, and the young man apologizing to the Iranian gangster-rulers, should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty when they get back to Blighty, with shooting definitely an option.

If Derbyshire is to shoot all those who were derelict in their duties, he should be sure to bring along enough ammunition to dispatch a substantial portion of the chain of command of the British Navy and the Blair government itself. All were, and continue to be, abject failures in dealing with a crisis that they allowed to occur.

The simple fact of the matter is that Iran was the aggressor, and the British Navy, acting under orders from Blair's government, were the enablers. Iran is clearly to blame for the kidnapping, but Blair's government allowed the kidnapping to take place when it had the means and the ability to blow the Iranian pirate fleet out of the water, if it only had the fortitude and sense of self preservation to do so.

I don't agree with Blair's spinelessness, any more than I agree with his fellow countryman Patrick Cockburn taking the coward's way out, blaming the United States for the kidnapping (a story that is a mish-mash of old information and unsupported conjecture).

This isn't the first Iranian attempt to capture western Coalition soldiers to use as bargaining chips. Cockburn's uninformed speculation that the British soldiers were kidnapped in response to U.S. forces capturing Iranian operatives in Iraq is flatly, factually wrong; Iranian forces ventured into Iraq in an attempt to capture U.S forces back in September, well in advance of the Iranian operatives' arrest that Cockburn says is the trigger for the kidnapping. What is criminal is that the British Navy were aware of the attempt in September, and another attempt to kidnap American soldiers during a raid on Karbala that saw five U.S soldiers killed, and did not take any obvious steps to protect their soldiers, sailors and marines before the attack, did nothing during the attack, and has done nothing since except utter empty rhetoric.

No, the United States is not remotely responsible for the capture of these 15 Britons. Iran is responsible for the brazen attempt, invading 1.5 miles into Iraqi waters to attempt the kidnapping, and the British are responsible for letting a much weaker foe steal their personnel without even attempting to defend them.

Cockburn wishes to blame others for his countrymen's kidnapping. Perhaps he should focus less on assigning blame to others, and recognize that the problem plaguing Britain is the inaction, lack of a sense of self preservation, and lack of honor of the British people themselves.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:51 AM | Comments (6)

April 02, 2007

Ninety Percent of Success is Just Showing Up

So perhaps the braintrusts of certain liberal blogs might want to get all of their facts straight before pitching a hissyfit over the fact General Petraeus ended up giving a Republican-only briefing last month.

It turns out that invitations to the videoconference were extended to both Democrats and Republicans, but no Democrats showed up.

Perhaps they were out of spit.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (5)

Feingold/Reid: Retreat Now, and We Can Still Lose This

Russ Feingold and Harry Reid say that the war in Iraqi isn't being lost fast enough, and will sponsor a retreat bill in the Senate that would largely defund the war and require a pullout to begin 120 days after the bill became law.

Meanwhile, on the ground in al Anbar, soldier/blogger "Teflon Don" speculates that the insurgency may be reaching a tipping point.

I'll try to keep writing about the winds here in Al-Anbar. I'll go out on a little bit of a limb and say that the insurgency is quickly approaching a tipping point. If things continue as they are right now, our military won't need a surge to chase the terrorists out of Anbar- the citizens will do it for us, which is as it should be. It's beginning to show already: more local tips, more police recruits (far more than anticipated), and sadly- in bigger and more desperate Al-Qaeda attacks.

He concludes this thought-provoking post by stating:

It's a big job, but I think we may have finally learned enough forgotten lessons from places like East Timor, Vietnam, Ireland, Malaysia, and others that it just might work this time.

Color me hopeful.

It might not come as much of a surprise to discover that others on the ground in Iraq are also seeing these same hopeful signs, which is perhaps why Reid and Feingold are so desperately trying to push to lose the war now before signs of a positive change become more widely known.

Perhaps Harry and Russ should do a little reading.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:04 PM | Comments (7)

How the Democrats Can Win In Iraq

It was all for show:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

"My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

I think Obama is stretching the truth a bit when he says, "no lawmaker wants to play chicken with the troops." Playing chicken with the troops is the preferred Democrat tactic these days, and passing the recent meaningless pork-laden bills through the House and Senate when they know they could not override a veto are concrete examples of this in action.

What Obama perhaps should have said is that no Democrat wants to get caught playing chicken with the troops, as John "Okinawa" Murtha has done several times, first when he accused Marines in Haditha of "cold-blooded murder" well before the investigation had concluded, and just months ago, when he attempted to undercut deployments by the arbitrary setting of readiness standards which would mark units as unfit for combat if they did not have key equipment before deploying.

The later tactic was especially dishonest and calculating, as units typically do not carry certain heavy equipment with them—for example, tanks and IFVs—that are already in Iraq. These assets are turned over to newly arriving units by the units they replace. It is largely because of his record of "playing chicken" that we have heard relatively little from him since his last attempt to use our soldiers as pawns.

Will the Democrats overplay their hand, and go too far once more?

Top Democrats are concerned that they will:

Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."

Leon E. Panetta, who was a top White House aide when President Bill Clinton pulled himself off the mat through repeated confrontations with Congress, sees the same risk. He urged Democrats to stick to their turf on such issues as immigration, health care and popular social programs, and to prove they can govern.

"That's where their strength is," Panetta said. "If they go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them, that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."

Notes Ed Morrissey:

The Democrats are about to retreat on Iraq war spending, after giving Bush an opportunity for an easy veto. It's bad enough that the Democrats played a game of chicken that they couldn't possibly win the last two weeks. They compounded the error by larding the final bills up with so much pork that Bush can now easily justify the veto on the grounds of containing corruption -- and make the Democrats look as if they will only fund the troops if they can get their own snouts into the trough as well.

Citing the same article, Dan Riehl wryly notes:

According to the Washington Post, while America is struggling with two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the war on terror, the Democrats are planning to broaden the front by increasing their attacks... on Bush.

The left end of the Democrat Party tips their hand to show they are uniting against their "true enemy," George W. Bush, once more. Perhaps, though, our nation’s best chance for victory in Iraq is for more moderate and conservative Democrats to change tactics on Iraq if the current Baghdad security plan begins to bear fruit later this summer.

If the "surge" shows signs of success, Democrats can turn on a dime to attack the Administration for not employing the COIN strategy advocated by General Petraeus far earlier in the war. They can then legitimately maintain that they support the troops and Iraq, and claim they are still anti-war at the same time by advocating a strategy that proved a successful template in the Malayan Emergency and other previous conflicts, a strategy many experts feel will result in far fewer civilian casualties over the long term.

They can easily justify this stance by stating that the tactics and strategy first created by French Lt. Col David Galula in Algeria in 1956 and adopted by General Petraeus in Counterinsurgency Field Manual FM3-24
as the only real "anti-war" position for a war already engaged, one that will eventually not only win the war in Iraq, but one that will save the most Iraqi lives in the process, and one would avoid fears of both a genocide and a wider regional war that the current Democrat plan of defeat seems to promise.

Many Americans still hold the Democrats responsible for the millions of lives lost as the result of the American pullout of Vietnam after the Viet Cong were effectively destroyed as a result of the Tet Offensive. Conservative Democrats are wary of setting the stage for yet another genocide which would only further erode their reputation on national security issues, and can avoid this label if they can find a way to justify advocating the Petraeus plan. That opportunity may present itself in coming months.

Are Democrats nimble enough to make such a transition? If they are, what will have to occur to make this bit of political jujitsu possible?

First and foremost, the COIN strategy being deployed by General Petraeus must show solid progress in coming months. Galula was able to effect noticeable change in Algeria in a very limited amount of time, and so it is possible for the security operations currently starting to ramp up to start making the desired changes.

Second, the Iraqi political and security apparatus are going to have to show significant signs of progress as well. There is reason to believe this is possible.

The al Anbar "Awakening" discussed at Acute Politics and elsewhere shows that a growing number of Sunni tribes in the most volatile province of Iraq are interested in change, and in political discussion. If they can be effectively engaged politically and find a voice for their concerns through the political process, this will be a blow to insurgent recruiting and to al Qaeda terrorists, who long relied upon Sunni support. This support for al Qaeda is failing rapidly, as a growing string of Sunni tribal attacks on the terror organization—including an attack yesterday that killed 21 members of al Qaeda by Iraqi security forces and Sunni tribesmen—shows the situation on the ground is evolving against outside Sunni influence.

Concurrently, Iran’s network supporting Shia forces are being rolled up at an astonishing rate, with more than 300 operatives captured in the past two months alone. There is little doubt that many of these arrests have come from intelligence provided by Iranian Quds Force soldiers captured in Iraq, but more quietly, nationalistic Iraqi Shia are turning against Iranian influence and proving tips leading to the compromise of Iranian operatives and operations.

The collapse of the relationship between al Qaeda and their former Shia allies and the turning of Iraqi Shia against Iranian influence is a good start, but only a start. The Iraqi government is going to have to find ways of engaging Sunnis, Baathists, and the "good” JAM Shia militias, and incorporate them into the political process, which will be exceedingly difficult and will not happen quickly. Many Americans will find the negotiations distasteful, but such a reconciliation is necessary, and it always has been.

If the political and military conditions do evolve as stated—and I readily admit that that is a very big "if"—Democrats have the opportunity to shift positions to envelop the Republicans in a political pincers movement. They will be able to outflank the Republicans with a pro-victory position that points out the long-running incompetence of the Administration in handling the war to this point, while evolving their position to match conditions on the ground to support a victory that Democrats can claim political credit for.

This of course will be a hard sell to many of the more stridently anti-war/pro-defeat Democrats, but for those that are more pragmatic, it affords an opportunity to reestablish national security bona files that have been languishing since the Vietnam War.

To pull this off, Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dog Democrats will have to play a vital role in persuading Nancy Pelosi that a victory in Iraq is in the party's best interests, and with Pelosi's well-known views, this may be a very tough sell. If it could work, however, the Democrats would be in a far better position in 2008 to win even more seats in the House and Senate. Democrat candidates running for President—especially Hillary Clinton—could stand to evolve their platforms to pick up votes from conservative voters, votes that would not be on the table otherwise.

In short, if the conditions on the ground over coming months indicate that success in Iraq is possible, Democrats that can read the tea leaves and adapt to a pro-victory position stand to route a bumbling Republican Party, relegating it to the sidelines for decades to come.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:42 AM | Comments (5)

Petraeus Interview

John Noonan at OpFor has an interview with Commanding U.S. Gneral David Petraeus posted that is certainly worth a read.

In addition, I'd strongly recommend reading this Arthur Herman article article on how to win the war in Iraq, which provides the historical background of the COIN strategy currently being rolled out by General Petraeus in Iraq.

Once you've read it you'll wonder why the strategy contained within wasn't rolled out in 2004.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:01 AM | Comments (2)

March 30, 2007

A Message to the Democratic Party Leadership

From YouTube:

Cpl Chris Mason recorded a video message for the Democratic Party Leadership before he was killed in action in Iraq. Chris was killed by Al Qaeda terrorist. He produced this video on November 12th 2006 at FOB Summerall. This video just recently worked its way to me (his dad) on March 23rd 2007, now I am posting it to the internet for him. It reflects his beliefs about the war in Iraq, the people of Iraq, freedom, why he joined the US military, what he expected after joining the military, and if the warriors lost in the war will be lives wasted.

Cpl Mason was killed on November 28th, 2006 by Al-Qaeda Terrorist forces operating in Iraq.

He was laid to rest December 12th 2006, exactly thirty days after making this video statement to the Democratic Party Leadership.

From Chris Mason's memorial web site:

He was killed in "The War on Terrorism" by Al-Qaeda terrorist forces in a small town "Siniyah, Iraq." Chris was ambushed and killed by Al-Qaeda terrorist while he was moving into position to provide fire support for his fellow paratroopers. They had come under heavy small arms fire from Al-Qaeda forces and could not disengage. He died soon after being hit by an IED, but DOD has him being killed by small arms fire, during a firefight with Al-Qaeda at the same location. Bottom line is he was doing what needed to be done for his country..

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, authorized on Feb 1, 2007 that the following quote be placed on Chris's headstone.... "We Will Not Tire, We Will Not Falter, And We Will Not Fail" with the president's signature affixed there after.

There are few men who will pick up a weapon and fight for this country, and my son was one of the few. He died standing toe to toe with Al-Qaeda.

Strength and Honor son, I stand proud for you. Airborne.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:38 PM | Comments (4)

EFP Importer Captured

And the Iranian dominoes in Iraq continue to fall:

U.S. and Iraqi forces detained a suspect linked to networks bringing sophisticated roadside bombs into Iraq during a raid Friday in the main Shiite district in Baghdad.

[snip]

The suspect, who was detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces during a raid in the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City, was believed to be tied to networks bringing the weapons known as explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, into Iraq, the military said.

It did not name the suspect or the groups he was accused of having ties to, but the U.S. military has asserted in recent months that Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Quds force have been providing Shiite militias with weapons and parts for sophisticated armor-piercing bombs. The EFPs are responsible for the deaths of more than 170 American and coalition soldiers since mid-2004, the military says.

The most important "nugget" to be gleaned from these three short paragraphs is that the man who was apprehended was part of a network importing explosively-formed penetrators into Iraq.

There are those on the political left here in the United States who have attempted to provide Iran with a figleaf for their involvement, implying that the EFPs used against American forces were indigenous weapons because some captured EFPs were made using some components—primarily the short sections of pipe used to form the canister containing the copper disk and explosive charge—that came from various parts of Iraq and other countries in the region. The man captured was part of a network smuggling in completed munitions, not components.

I'd also note that Judi was wrong in his the terminology he used to describe the weapons the network was smuggling in to Iraq. Sadly, this is a consistent problem among Associated Press reporters. I'll give Judi the same advice I gave his superior, Kim Gamel: Learn the Tech, or Take up Baking.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:33 PM | Comments (3)

Oh, My

I can fully appreciate the fact that our ideological opposites don't support the war in Iraq and would prefer that our military be recalled. I can even accept some of their rationalizations, even though I think they are purposefully downplaying the full-on genocide that would be the likely result of their retreat-at-any-cost mentality, of what they view as a Republican war in Iraq. To be fair, the Iraq War isn't the only thing liberals see as a "Republican war." They seem to think everything is the result of one Republican War or another, except, perhaps, their own War on Hyperbole.

Rick Moran highlights one example of the overwrought wailing and knashing of frappacino-stained teeth this morning, a post on the liberal blog Booman Tribune that is highly emotional, to put it mildly:

So here we are in the midst of an escalation oops, surge, in their futile involvement in the Fertile Delta, sending ever more of what they have been determined to be our fully expendable American youth to die amid the filthy corrupt realities of the modern, oil saturated Arab world. All the while our boy Junior adds daily to his litany of pious pronouncements on peace and freedom for a part of the world where there is little respect for peace and no respect for liberty because 13 centuries of Islamic fatalism and authoritarian rule have not allowed, and may never allow either.

As the bullets and shrapnel fly and the bodies are stacked in great rotting piles and the Mothers of Iraq and the Mothers of America weep in endless screams of pain and anguish our congress plays political games in a disgusting, half ass tug of war with President Puke that makes me want to offer Monica Lewinsky a chance to perform just one more public service so that we might at long last give the Republicans and the Democrats something to get stirred up about enough to impeach this criminal son of a bitch.

I talked briefly with a young man today who is leaving for Army boot camp in a few days. We were introduced by his friend's father who is a close friend of mine from my favorite watering hole, the local pool hall. The young man is 19, fresh of face and rosy cheeked, not an ounce of guile in his spirit and ripe for the slaughter. As we spoke I couldn't shake the feeling that I might never see the kid alive again. I wanted to cry as I shook his hand and told him to pay attention and cover his ass.

The author is said to be Bob Higgins, but the near-hysterical, semi-coherent and sobbing tone of the post sounds like it could easily have come from the dead-on lefty-spoofing troll known as CheChe.

Both the Moran and Higgen's posts were proximately triggered by a Joshua Partlow article in this morning's Washington Post titled, Gunmen Go On Rampage In Iraqi City, a follow-up story on the Tal Afar massacre two days ago that I've discussed previously.

For those of you just coming to this story, the Tal Afar massacre were the extrajudicial summary executions of 45-60 Sunni men in a Sunni neighborhood by off-duty Iraqi police and militiamen (all believed to be Shia) in retaliation for a pair of truck bombs in primarily Shia areas earlier that day that killed 63 and wounded 150.

The revenge attacks are chilling, and an undoubted setback, and yet they are perhaps unsurprising in some ways, as the Shia have been hit time and time again by insurgent forces recently, and finally hit their breaking point. There is obviously no excuse for the attacks and a joint investigation by Iraqi Interior Ministry, Ministry of Defense, and the Ministry for National Security is underway.

It is unknown if the recent tit-for-tat in Tal Afar is just the beginning of a resurgence of violent in that Iraqi citizen, or if time with prove these to be horrible isolated incidents.

One thing is for certain, however. There are not "great rotting piles" of bodies in Iraq to speak of yet (Sunni and Shia alike bury their dead within 24 hours), but if liberals such as Higgens get their way and force an arbitrary withdrawal date, "great rotting piles" of dead Iraqis are indeed in Iraq’s future, as noted yesterday by New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns in an interview with Matt Lauer on Today:

LAUER: What do you think happens if there's a date certain set for that withdrawal?

BURNS: If United States troops stay, there will be mounting casualties and costs for the American taxpayer. If they leave, I think from the perspective of watching this war for four years or more in Baghdad, there's no doubt that the conflict could get a great deal worse very quickly, and we'd see levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."

And later: "Most would agree there is a civil war, but a countervaling force exercised principally by Americans but also other coalition troops is a very significant factor that leaves the potential for a considerable worsening once you remove that countervaling force. . . Remove that countervaling force and then there will be no limit to this violence."

LAUER: What about this idea that if we leave, we leave behind a vacuum that other states in that region will rush to fill?

BURNS: Very difficult to tell what they would do, but of course this could come as a wake-up call to them, once they were convinced that American troops were going to withdraw and that they might get drawn in, perhaps they would get serious amongst themselves about drawing up some sort of compact to avoid that possibility, but that's purely in the realm of speculation. We really don't know what their intentions would be, but there's certainly a potential for regional conflict.

None of these concerns seem to touch the American political left, which views this as a "Republican War," our soldiers as children "ripe for the slaughter," and notably silent about the hihg probabability that the catastrophic and arbitrary withdrawal they would arrange would lead to more slaughter in Iraq, and perhaps a regional war fought primarily in Iraq.

I noted on March 8 in Left Behind:

It is expected that the power vacuum left by a Democrat-forced American military retreat from Iraq would be filled by foreign nations fueling a sectarian war in Iraq that would be both civil and proxy in nature. Saudi Arabia has made clear their intention to provide military and financial resources to Iraq's Sunni minority to hopefully keep their co-religionists from being "ethnically cleansed," while Iran would continue or increase its military and financial support of Shia factions in hopes of gaining a sphere of influence over oil-rich southern Iraq.

The end result of the Democrat plan of defeat would be a war-torn landscape not too dissimilar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War, writ large.

A repeat of events like the Srebrenica massacre are possible in Iraq's future if Democrats have their way.

Democrats, of course, know this, but simply seem to find political games in America far more important than the regional destabilization and projected increase in civilian deaths their plan for defeat would bring.

Democrats claim to care about our troops, which they do, when it’s politically convenient and they’re fresh out of spit.

Sadly, the millions of Iraqi civilians that would suffer as a result of their plan for defeat don't matter nearly as much to Democrat politicians.

Iraqi children won't send out important action alerts over frappacinos, or fund presidential campaigns in either America. It isn't their grandchildren that will suffer and die if we leave before the job is done.

The Democrats won't mention the cost of pandering to their radical base.

Apparently the one thing too shameful to discuss is the legacy they would leave behind.

Perpetually-anguished liberals like Bob Higgins are always quick to lament the lives lost in Iraq as they occur, holding them up as examples of the evils of what they see as a Republican War. Higgins closes his post saying:

I am sick of reading of war, hearing of war, writing of war and speaking of war and I know that all of the knowledge of war that comprises so much of my own human experience has only created in my soul a world in which I no longer have a thirst to live. I will take to my eternal grave the knowledge and stench of war and death and in my dead ears will dwell the clamor of the agonized keening of all the victims of war of human history.

The hell with it, I need a drink.

Higgins is sick of reading of war, hearing of war, writing of war and speaking of war.

I suspect that this means he will refuse to write or think about the widespread genocide and the regional war that may result from liberal policy of arbitrary surrender for which he so feverishly advocates.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:44 AM | Comments (7)

March 29, 2007

Carry Me

In many ways, this is simply an unremarkable picture.

carryme

Scenes like the one above, with smiling Iraqi children clamoring for the attention of U.S soldiers, are commonplace throughout Iraq. There is absolutely nothing special about them at all.

Today, Democrats in the United States Senate passed a war spending bill that would mandate U.S. military forces begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage, with a goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns noted this morning that if the U.S withdraws, "there's no doubt that the conflict could get a great deal worse very quickly, and we'd see levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."

If Burns is right and Democrats succeed in instigating a genocide, I wonder who will carry the Iraqi children... and how busy those pallbearers will be.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:01 PM | Comments (9)

Embedded Frustrations

If you are a journalist or blogger who wants to embed in Iraq, good luck making it through the PAO system. As a pair of prominent bloggers tell us on the record, getting into Iraq can be all but impossible thanks to obstacles put in place by the U.S. military's Pubic Affairs Office, and once there, the PAO seems to delight in making the life of an embed a living hell.

I wrote last week about embedded journalist Michael Yon being threatened with expulsion from Iraq by U.S. Army General Vincent Brooks, in a post called The Silencer. If the history I cobbled together is correct--and I believe it is--Brooks has held a grudge against Yon since 2005, when Brooks was the lead PAO (Public Affairs Officer) for the war, and a former spokesman for U.S. Central Command known as the "the face of the U.S. military" during his tenure in that position.

Brooks seems to have several points of irritation with Yon.

The first was a dispatch Yon published called Proximity Delays, in which Yon criticized the arcane and seemingly arbitrary censorship of Yon's writing by the military PAO system, which would ask him not to write about events, only to see that same PAO system release information "mangled into meaninglessness" to the world's media outlets. As a result, Yon was ordered not to write about an event that became his most famous individual dispatch, "Gates of Fire."

During a firefight in Mosul, LTC Kurilla was shot three times and CSM Robert Prosser was engaged in hand-to-hand conflict when Yon picked up the M4 carbine Prosser had dropped, and violated embed rules by engaging in combat, an event chronicled in words and pictures in Gates of Fire. After the battle was over, Yon described his debriefing thusly:

When I came back into the TOC, Major Michael Lawrence - who I often challenge to pull-up contests, and who so far has beat me (barely) every time - looked me square and professionally, in the direct way of a military leader and asked, "Mike, did you pick up a weapon today?" "I did." "Did you fire that weapon?" "I did." "If you pick up another weapon, you are out of here the next day. Understood?" "Understand." "We still have to discuss what happened today."

Writers are not permitted to fight. I asked SFC Bowman to look at the photos and hear what happened. Erik Kurilla and CSM Prosser were witness, but I did not want the men of Deuce Four who were not there to think I had picked up a weapon without just cause. I approached SFC Bowman specifically, because he is fair, and is respected by the officers and men. Bowman would listen with an open mind. While looking at the photos, Bowman said, "Mike, it's simple. Were you in fear for your life or the lives of others?"

"Thank you Sergeant Bowman," I said.

For the combat soldiers of the Deuce Four Stryker Brigade, that others had their lives potentially hanging on the actions of someone intervening was enough. Senior Army officers, including Brooks, thought otherwise, and Yon discussed last week:

The first time the Army threatened to kick me out was in late 2005, just after I published a dispatch called "Gates of Fire." Some of the senior level public affairs people who'd been upset by "Proximity Delays" were looking ever since for a reason to kick me out and they wanted to use "Gates of Fire" as a catapult. In the events described in that dispatch, I broke some rules by, for instance, firing a weapon during combat when some of our soldiers were fighting fairly close quarters and one was wounded and still under enemy fire. That’s right. I'm not sure what message the senior level public affairs people thought that would convey had they succeeded, (which they didn't) but it was clear to me what they valued most. They want the press on a short leash, even at the expense of the life of a soldier.

These events where Yon bent or broke the PAO's diktats were possible grounds for expulsion, to be sure, but these authoritative decrees were arbitrary, and made little sense on the battlefield. Did the PAO stifle Yon purposefully so that they could bask in the attention of releasing the capture of the Zarqawi letter? Would the PAO system rather that Yon stood by and watch American soldiers die than intercede?

With two seemingly arbitrary strikes against him already, Yon once again found conflict when the Army.

On May 2, 2005, Yon took a photo of U.S. Army Major Mark Bieger cradling an Iraqi girl named Farah who was wounded by a car bomb. The photo became the iconic photo of the war to date, and was selected as Time magazine's website readers as the most important picture of the year with almost 70% of the vote.

Yon agreed to let the Army use the photo for internal publication, but was shocked when the Army violated Yon's copyright, and released the photo to the world through the PAO, unattributed and unauthorized. After a seven-month stalemate with Army lawyers, attention from the media and the resulting blogswarm embarrassed the Army into having a more senior Army lawyer review and later settle the case.

The senior officer involved in this embarrassing case of copyright infringement? None other than then Chief of Public Affairs, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks. Ironically, Yon thanked him at the time.

Back in Iraq in a different role (deputy commanding general - support for Multinational Division-Baghdad), Brooks apparently still harbors his grudge, sending Yon an an email threatening to kick him out of Iraq.

Last night, Yon posted RUBS (Raw, Unedited and Barely Spell-checked) #2, in which he notes continued attempts by the Army to make his reporting as difficult as possible:

Generals with billions of dollars at their disposal gild their own MOCs (Media Operations Centers) with space-tech broadcasting gear, allowing them to bounce down live to America and the world, while journalists are not permitted to hook their computers into the unsecure "NIPR" internet lines. Public Affairs officers stagger like sway-backed mules with shifting excuses for why media have no secure places to live and work at the major bases, and why every solution for communications is ad hoc.

Journalists are welcome to come here and report. Sort of. On Camp Victory, celebrity media passing through might get star treatment at the Joint Visitors Bureau on the lake by the palace, but others get a cot in the KBR tents where itinerant men – not soldiers usually – often stay for a day or two before shipping off to parts unknown around Iraq, or the world. The tent-mates are Americans, Iraqis, Indians and others. In a tent where I recently stayed, MPs handcuffed one giant of a man, an American, before he could make good his threat to "stomp the liver out" of one of the tent-mates. In this jailhouse atmosphere, some men's eyes dart crow-like to shiny objects, and a journalist with expensive gear is reluctant to even take a shower or to eat without a way to secure the crow bait. If a five minute shower or twenty minute trip to a mess hall is unwise, the idea of going on a five or ten day combat mission, leaving non-essential gear behind, is out of the question. As is lugging it along.

Senior officers know this. I made sure. But when I told one senior ranking man about my concern for the expensive gear, his response was "I don't care."

Apparently unable to find a legitimate excuse to throw Yon out of Iraq, senior army officers at the PAO (many of which are still friendly with a threatening Vincent "The Silencer" Brooks) seem intent on making it as difficult as possible for Yon to do his job. They apparently want him to quit and leave Iraq.

At least he got in.

Michael Fumento another highly-regarded embedded journalist and blogger with three al Anbar embeds under his belt, can't get back into the country, once again thanks to U.S. military Public Affairs:

I asked for two embeds in the Baghdad area or one in Baghdad and one in Diyala, a hotspot on the Iranian border. These would allow the reporting I specialize in, which isn't "war" generally but combat. I like to report on the men doing the fighting (see this and this, for example). One person said of my “New Band of Brothers” article, it’s "Great stuff with a great unit in a very tough neighborhood!" That was General David Petraeus, now commander of coalition forces in Iraq...

...During this time I corresponded with high-ranking Public Affairs Officers who tried to make me out to be the bad guy because I didn't want to travel eight time zones on my own dime and write about nothing. One essentially told me that a good journalist can make lemonade out of lemons. The saying, of course, is to make lemonade "When life gives you lemons," not "When we give you lemons." They might as well have said, "Hey baby, just relax and enjoy it."

Fumento told me via email last week that since releasing that post on March 3, he appears to have been "blacklisted."

Since that piece appeared, NO PAO in all of Iraq will respond to my e-mails. That includes the Marines in Anbar who earlier made it quite clear they were very eager to have me back. CPIC blacklisted me. So while I don't know the particulars yet of why Yon is on the s--t list I certainly agree that CPIC has its head up its butt in catering to every little whim of MSM reporters who are stabbing our troops and the war effort in the back even as it blocks the efforts of citizen embeds who pay out of their own pockets to get down and dirty with the troops and make every effort to report what's really going on in Iraq.

Yon and Fumento aren't the only experienced embeds I spoke with that criticized the capricious, arbitrary and vindictive nature of the military PAO system, a system that doesn't understand the importance of embedded journalists and bloggers in getting information to the public, and simultaneously seems intent on destroying that which it doesn't understand.

As Fumento closed in his post Why I'm Not Embedded in Iraq: The Army isn't Helping Win the War at Home:

In a guerrilla war, perception is more important than reality. For example, the Tet Offensive saw the Viet Cong crushed, but the media converted it into an incredible communist victory. When CPIC caters to reporters who put headlines before facts, who want to portray the war as hopeless, and who show the military in as bad a light as possible and then proceeds to shunt aside reporters with a track record for veracity and supporting the troops, it shows utter ignorance of this truism. Somehow I don't think this was part of Gen. Petraeus's plan.

From what I've read of General Petraeus, he has an excellent conceptual grasp of how to fight and win a military campaign against an insurgency.

I sincerely hope he can come to understand the importance of using embeds to win the media war against the insurgency as well.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:43 AM | Comments (6)

March 28, 2007

On the Brink?

RIA Novosti (Russia) reports that American forces seem to be preparing for a combined air and land assault on Iran:

Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

Feh.

I strongly doubt that there is anything to this account, with the possible exception that we might be positioning forces in a bluff. I don't claim to know the dispostion or concentration of American ground forces within striking distance of Iran, but I don't think that a force sufficient to stage an invasion of Iran could be drawn up without any word leaking out.

Then again, these accounts sound a little ominous, and make my crystal ball sound pretty accurate, even though I question the timing.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:51 PM | Comments (4)

Rampage in Tal Afar

Simply awful:

Off-duty Shiite policemen enraged by massive bombings in the northern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there on Wednesday, killing at least 45 men, police and hospital officials said.

The policemen began roaming the town's Sunni neighborhoods on foot early in the morning, shooting at Sunni residents and homes

A senior hospital official in Tal Afar said at least 45 men ages 15 to 60 were killed and four others were wounded.

Police said dozens of Sunnis were killed or wounded, but they had no precise figures. The shooting continued for more than two hours, the officials said.

Army troops later moved into the Sunni areas to stop the violence and a curfew was slapped on the entire town, according to Wathiq al-Hamdani, the provincial police chief and his head of operations, Brig. Abdul-Karim al-Jibouri.

Tal Afar is a city of 220,000, and unlike their neighbors, the residents are nearly all Turkmen. the city's population is roughly 60-percent Shia, and the city is divided into 18 neighborhoods along tribal lines. Middle East Online reports that the dead were found handcuffed and blindfolded, shot in the back of the head, execution style. The revenge killings took place shortly after the truck bombings, in the Sunni neighborhood of Wahada. It is not yet known why this particular Sunni neighborhood was targeted.

The rampage ended with the arrival of an Iraqi Army unit.

Time reports that the Iraqi Army has already arrested 18 Tal Afar policemen for the killings based on eyewitness accounts from the victim's family, and also stated that Shia militiamen participated in the attacks.

The Tal Afar police have been confined to barracks and that police from Mosul (30 miles to the east of Tal Afar) were moving in to provide security. Brig. Abdul-Karim al-Jibouri is moving in to take control of the operations on the ground, and to presumably start an investigation.

The massacre--there is no other way to describe it--was in response to two truck bombings carried out by Sunni militants yesterday that killed 63 and wounded 150.

The Sunnis already distrust the Shia-dominated police forces, and the two-hour revenge attack is sure to sour relations even more.

How much relations will sour depends in large part on how the Iraqi police forces themselves respond to the attack. Confining the local police to their barracks is the first step, but it is necessary for an investigation to immediately begin, and for those responsible for the attacks to be arrested (if there are more than the 18 captured so far) and tried for their crimes.

If there is any good news at all to report from this massacre, it is that the Shia-dominated Iraqi Army was able to move in and arrest many if not all of those responsible for the attacks and restore order without U.S. involvement.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:50 AM | Comments (7)

March 27, 2007

The Surge at Home

Via Instapundit, Frank Warner notes that public opinion on the progress of the Iraq War is slightly more optimistic:

One little-publicized finding of the new Pew poll is that, compared to last month, Americans now are slightly more optimistic about the Iraq war.

The portion of Americans who believe the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" for the United States increased from the all-time low of 30 percent in February to 40 percent this month.

This bump in support comes just as E.J. Dionne calls the battle for a free Iraq "a conflict that grows more unpopular by the day." Which day in March?

In the last month, the percent of Americans saying the war is going "not too well" or "not well at all" dropped from 67 to 56.

I'd caution that the influx of American soldiers into the Baghdad security plan is just beginning, with the full force of the "surge" arriving in June, even as Democrats futily push forward with their plan to lose the war.

It will be intersting to see if this change in the Pew poll of those who think the war is going "very well" or "fairly well" continues to grow as more soldiers enter Iraq, and if the number of those who think the war is going "not too well" or "nor well at all" drops further. This, of course, will be dictated largely by how the war progresses on the ground.

If definitive progress is made in coming months, it will be very interesting to see how that affects the polls, and the actions of House and Senate Democrats. Bills to lose the war by setting artificial and arbitrary deadlines are being set up for a Presidential veto, and it will be very interesting to see if Pelosi, Murtha, etc will continue to attempt to lose the war if measurable progress is made in the coming months.

I doubt that the most strident anti-war critics will be silenced by any hope of victory, and it could be interesting to see how Democrats attempt to placate their radical base if further progress occurs.

Update: Brian attempts to answer the question, "How's that surge going?"

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (26)

March 23, 2007

Peacekeeper Cargo Plane Shot Down in Somalia

A witness claims it was hit by a SAM during its ascent. Details are still sketchy right now, and there doesn't seem to be any word on how many people were on the plane, or if anyone on the ground was killed or wounded as a result of the plane coming down.

As of yet it doesn't look like anyone has taken claim for the attack, but the obvious suspects are Somali Islamists.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:41 AM | Comments (1)

Landscape of War

I'm not familar with Mike Gudgell of ABC News, but his "Reporter's Notebook" article about what he is seeing in Iraq is a must read.

A taste of Gudgell's article, starting on page 3:

According to the U.S. military, a group of al Qaeda in Iraq fighters recently entered a small village east of Baghdad and announced they would be back and would take several houses for their base. When they returned two days later, their convoy was attacked by villagers. The military found out when the villagers told them to come out and pick up bodies and prisoners.

The numbers of civilian deaths are down a little but that's only a small part of the story. It's the little things together that make the difference. It might be too early to tell if this is a tipping point in the war, but it does appear as though the momentum has changed.

There's a long way to go, but there is room for some hope. It depends on your perspective; those snapshots and keyhole views of the broad landscape of what is a living war.

I strongly urge you to read the entire article. Gudgell is matter of fact, and pulls no punches.

More, please.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM | Comments (4)

March 22, 2007

al-Sadr Spokesman Captured; Held For Karbala Attacks

Two brothers with ties to Muqtada al-Sadr have been arrested for their role in the killing of five American soldiers in Karbala two months ago.

From CNN:

"Over the past several days, coalition forces in Basra and Hilla captured Qais Khazali, his brother Laith Khazali and several other members of the Khazali network," the U.S. military said in a statement.

Qais Khazali has been known to reporters as a spokesman for al-Sadr's political movement, and Reuters news agency reported that Khazali is a senior aide to the anti-American cleric.

Al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, a Shiite militia, is suspected of being involved in Iraq's sectarian violence.

The U.S. military said the Khazali network is "directly connected" to the January killings in Karbala, the Shiite holy city south of Baghdad.

On Wednesday, a U.S. official said the brothers were suspected of being part of a network using weapons known as explosively formed projectiles or penetrators. Bush administration officials have alleged that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force have provided these munitions to Shiite groups in Iraq.

Those grains of salt I spoke of yesterday? They just got smaller, especially when considered with other developments, all of which are providing more evidence that the Iranian role in the Iraq War may be larger than we were previously aware, and potentially growing.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:28 AM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2007

Red Meat. Season Well With Large Grains of Salt

It's based upon unconfirmed reports from unknown informants, but the allegations made in this story could be interesting if corroborated by another source:

Iraqi insurgents, guerrilla fighters and death squads are being trained in secret camps in Iran with the blessing of top Tehran leaders and at least three senior Iraqi political figures, an Iranian opposition figure said Tuesday.

Would-be Iraqi fighters are smuggled into Iran, schooled in everything from sniper techniques to explosive devices and sent back to Iraq to wage war on U.S.-led coalition forces, Alireza Jafarzadeh said at a news conference.

It is important to note that Jafarzadeh has worked for the Mujahedin al-Khalq, an anti-Iranian terrorist group, and presently leads the Washington-based Strategic Policy Consulting think tank.

Perhaps the most interesting part of his claim is his specificity of those named as being among the Iranian leaders involved in the plot.

Jafarzadeh said Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are closely connected to the training. He said Abu Ahmad Al-Ramisi, governor of southern Iraq's Al-Muthanna province, and two members of Iraq's National Assembly are also involved.

He identified one as Hadi Al-Ameri, who he said is chairman of the legislature's security committee and head of the Badr Corps, the Iran-based military wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The other is an assembly member known in Iraq as Abu Mehdi Mohandas, he said.

Before the day is out, I expect that a fevered left-wing blogger (or ten) will state that the Bush Administration is behind Jafarzadeh's comments, and that these comments will be used to justify a military attack on Iran.

I don't think that is the case.

If there is any Administration involvement behind Jafarzadeh's charges, it seems that the goal of such specific charges would be to embarrass the Iranian government to stop or restrict their involvement in funding and supplying violence in Iraq.

It is known fact that Iran is supplying anti-government forces within Iraq with weapons—the confiscation of more than 100 Iranian Styer HS50 sniper rifles proves that beyond any reasonable doubt—but blaming Iran the nation is far easier for the mullacracy to dodge than are charges levied against individual Iranian officials.

Will specifically alleging the involvement of key senior Iranian government officials have any impact in slowing the flow of weapons, funding, or training from Iran to Iraq's anti-government forces? I somewhat doubt it, but at this point, it may be the only option on the table.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (1)

An Inadequate Response to a Father's Loss

Yesterday in his Chicago Tribune blog "Change of Subject", Eric Zorn wrote about a two-page letter written to President Bush by Richard Landeck, father of Captain Kevin Landeck. Captain Landeck and Staff Sgt. Terrance D. Dunn were soldiers of the Tenth Mountain Division killed by a roadside bomb on February 6, south of Baghdad.

Richard Landeck said he mailed his letter to the President a little more than six weeks ago, and has yet to receive a response.

The letter, written two days after his son's death, is printed in full on Zorn's blog, but I'll replicate it here as well.

Feb 4, 2007

Dear Mr. Bush:

This will be the only time I will refer to you with any type of respect.

My son was killed in Iraq on February 2, 2007. His name is Captain Kevin Landeck.

He served with the Tenth Mountain Division. He was killed while riding in a Humvee by a roadside bomb just south of Baghdad. He has a loving mother, a loving father and loving sister.

You took him away from us. He celebrated his 26th birthday January 30th and was married for 17 months. He graduated from Purdue University and went through the ROTC program. That is where he met his future wife. He was proud to be a part of the military and took exceptional pride in becoming a leader of men. He accepted his role as a platoon leader with exceptional enthusiasm and was proud to serve his country.

I had many conversations with Kevin before he left to serve as well as during his deployment. The message he continued to send to me was that of incompetence. Incompetence by you, (Vice President Richard) Cheney and (former Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. Incompetence by some of his commanders as well as the overall strategy of your decisions.

When I asked him about what he thought about your decision to "surge" more troops to Baghdad, he told me, "until the Iraqis pick up the ball, we are going to get cut to shreds. It doesn’t matter how many troops Bush sends, nothing has been addressed to solve the problem he started."

Answer me this: How in the world can you justify invading Iraq when the problem began and continues to lie in Afghanistan? I don’t want your idiotic standard answer about keeping America safe. What did Sadaam Hussein have to do with 9/11? We all know it had to do with the first Iraq war where your father failed to take Sadaam down.

Well George, you have succeeded in taking down over 3,100 of our best young men, my son being one of them. Kevin told me many times we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq and they could not do their jobs as soldiers. He said they are trained to be on the offensive and to fight but all they are doing is acting like policemen.

Well George, you or some "genius" like you who have never fought in a war but enjoy all the perks your positions afford you are making life and death decisions. In the case of my son, you made a death decision.

Let me explain a few other points he and I discussed. He said when he and his men were riding down the road in their Humvees, roadside bombs would explode and they would hear bullets bouncing off their vehicle. He said they were scared. He thought "why should we be the ones who are scared?" He asked permission to take some of his men out at night with their night vision glasses because as he said "we own the night" and watch for the people who are setting roadside bombs and "take them out." He said, "I want them to be the ones that are scared." He was denied permission. Why? It made perfect sense to me and other people who I told about this.

When he was at a checkpoint he was told that if a vehicle was coming at them even at a high rate of speed he could not arbitrarily use his weapon. He had to wave his arms and, if the vehicle did not stop, he could fire a warning shot over the vehicle. If the vehicle did not stop then, he could shoot at the tires. If the vehicle did not yet stop he could take a shot at the driver. Who in their right mind made that kind of decision?

How would you like to be at a check point with a vehicle coming at you that won't stop and go through all those motions? You will never know!

You or Cheney or Rumsfeld will never know the anguish, the worry, the sleepless nights, the waiting for the loved one who may never return. If the soldiers were able to do their jobs and the ego's of politicians like you, your "cronies" and some commanders had their heads on straight, we would be out of this mess which we should not be involved with in the first place.

My family and I deserve and explanation directly from you... not some assistant who will likely read this and toss it. This war is wrong.

I want you to look me and my wife and daughter directly in the eye and tell me why my son died. We should not be there, but because of your ineptness and lack of correct information I have lost my son, my pride and joy, my hero!

Again, you, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never understand what the families of soldiers are going through and don't try to tell me you do. My wife, my daughter and I cannot believe we have lost our only son and brother to a ridiculous political war that you seem to want to maintain. I hope you and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the other people on your band wagon sleep well at night... we certainly don't.

Richard Landeck

Proud father of a fallen soldier

Eric Zorn's position on the war is abundantly clear and permeates his blog entry like grease on a paper bag, and so I'll skip his unseemly attempt to hijack Richard Landeck's grief, and focus on the letter itself.

I first read Mr. Landeck's letter on Zorn's blog last night. The anger, anguish, and loss he feels over what he sees as the needless death of his son has to wash through all but the hardest of hearts. Richard Landeck clearly loved a son he will never see again, never watch mature, raise children, and grandchildren...

I could not easily come to terms with the hurt and rage behind Landeck's letter, the loss of his son, framed by what both the grieving father and the lost son thought of the Iraq War. I still can't.

I cannot imagine sending a child to fight a war in which neither my child nor I believed, nor the pain that Mr. Landeck, his wife, daughter, and widowed daughter-in-law must now endure as the result of Captain Landeck's death. There is a huge void now in their lives that will never be filled, one that cannot be expressed. Others will see the pain and sense the loss, but they be unable to address it, and they will feel shame. There simply are no words to sooth a wound to the soul.

My own response, couched in that same embarrassed shame of not knowing what to say, is unfulfilling, and inadequate.

I somewhat suspect that President Bush has not personally seen Mr. Landeck's letter. Even if he has, what precisely would he say? What should he say? How do you respond to a grieving father that hold's you personally responsible for his son's death?

Would Richard Landeck have felt any less rage, anger, or loss if his son had been killed by an IED in Khandahar, Afghanistan? Would Kevin's death have been "better" if he had died fighting another war started by this same President? Somehow, I doubt the suffering of the Landeck family would have been much less.

We cannot fill that part of our lives where a fallen loved one once stood.

Mr. Landeck has exercised the option to feel that his son's mission and death were not worthwhile. He has every right to feel that way, to question the competence of the leaders that placed his son in combat, the commanders on the ground that declined Captain Landeck's requests for a certain specific type of mission, and the rules of engagement.

Mr. Landeck has that right, but is doesn't mean he is right.

Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor the generals, nor the colonels, are responsible for the deaths of Captain Landeck and Staff Sgt. Dunn on February 6. The names of the man or men who planted and triggered the roadside bomb that took the lives of these soldiers may never be known.

What is known is that these men, and others like them, will continue to plant roadside bombs, detonate VBIEDs in markets or in front of police stations, killing and wounding scores of soldiers, policemen, and civilians until men like Captain Landeck stop them.

Sixty-three years and seventeen days before Kevin Landeck died, correspondent Ernie Pyle wrote about the death of another U.S. Army Captain highly regarded by his men.

The unburdened mules moved off to their olive orchard. The men in the road seemed reluctant to leave. They stood around, and gradually one by one I could sense them moving close to Capt. Waskow's body. Not so much to look, I think, as to say something in finality to him, and to themselves. I stood close by and I could hear.

One soldier came and looked down, and he said out loud, "God damn it." That's all he said, and then he walked away. Another one came. He said, "God damn it to hell anyway." He looked down for a few last moments, and then he turned and left.

Another man came; I think he was an officer. It was hard to tell officers from men in the half light, for all were bearded and grimy dirty. The man looked down into the dead captain's face, and then he spoke directly to him, as though he were alive. He said: "I'm sorry, old man."

Then a soldier came and stood beside the officer, and bent over, and he too spoke to his dead captain, not in a whisper but awfully tenderly, and he said:

"I sure am sorry, sir."

Then the first man squatted down, and he reached down and took the dead hand, and he sat there for a full five minutes, holding the dead hand in his own and looking intently into the dead face, and he never uttered a sound all the time he sat there.

And finally he put the hand down, and then reached up and gently straightened the points of the captain's shirt collar, and then he sort of rearranged the tattered edges of his uniform around the wound. And then he got up and walked away down the road in the moonlight, all alone.

I sure am sorry, Mr. Landeck.

It is an inadequate response to a grieving father, but it is all I have to give.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | Comments (56)

March 20, 2007

Haditha Photo Seems to Question Wuterich's Memory

I missed the 60 Minutes interview of Marine Frank Wuterich that Allah discussed on Hot Air yesterday, and therefore can't dispute nor affirm the Neil Boortz claim that the interview was, "one of the most outrageous displays of media bias ever."

What I will comment on briefly, however, is the screen capture Allah was able to grab of a photo showing the bodies of the five Iraqis that Wuterich said he suspected of planting the IED, and then shot as they were running away.

haditha

The picture is grainy and not of great quality, and I don't have the detail I would generally like to have, but I'll make an observation all the same:

I don't think these men were running, from anyone.

The bodies are closely clustered together within steps of the car in which they were traveling. A person standing still, if shot with a killing wound or multiple wounds, often falls in place. They may get up and move locations, but based upon what I interpret as pooled blood in the admittedly sub-par photo, I don't think that occurred.

It is highly unlikely, if this men had decided to run, that:

  • they would have taken off in unison;
  • that Wuterich would have been able to react, fire, and fatally hit five running men within feet of the vehicle.
  • that they would have fallen in unison if on the move when shot.

It isn't impossible that this occurred, but I think it is very unlikely.

Now, we don't know if the bodies of the men have been touched. I think that if they had been moved (dragged) that blood trails would have been in evidence, even in a picture with quality this poor. I think that if they have been touched, they might have been rolled over to see if they were still alive, but I don't think they would have been turned to face the opposite direction.

In general, I'd expect someone shot during the first few steps while attempting to flee (which would almost have to be the case if the Wuterich account can be correlated in any way to the photo) would fall headfirst in the direction that momentum would take them. I'd also find it unlikely that a person taking just a few steps would generate enough momentum to somersault.

All that said, look at the orientation of the bodies in the photo.

haditha2

Two bodies (labeled 1 and 2) are oriented clearly with their heads generally toward the car, which makes it doubtful they could have been moving away from the vehicle, at least at any speed approaching a run. The body closest to the camera, labeled 3, is roughly in the position you might expect of someone standing still when shot, then falling backward. The black box I drew, merely for illustrative purposes, gives a very rough idea of where the shots appear to have come from, based upon a number of guestimates, factoring in the position of the white car, and the object in the top right that would have likely screened these men from view of anyone much further back down the road.

The photo, bad as it may be, seems to validate the Dela Cruz version of events, and based upon Dela Cruz's own description of what he did to one of the bodies, might even explain why the stain near the head of the body labeled 2 appears to be lighter in color than the other dark stains around the bodies in the photo.

This, of course, does nothing to establish the guilt or innocence of Wuterich, nor any of the other Marines. It does nothing to establish a state of mind, nor a motive.

What is does suggest, at the very least, is that Wuterich does not recall events as the photo seems to suggest they took place.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:39 PM | Comments (6)

March 17, 2007

A Gathering of Eagles

The Gathering of Eagles is today in Washington, DC. It is a gathering of military veterans and proud Americans that will be ther to protect the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ("The Wall") from an anti-war protest sponsered by radical Muslim groups, anarchists, leftover 60s radicals, Marxists, and others invested in an American defeat.

Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston will be there, as will Melanie Morgan and what we expect to be a substantial number of veterans groups and the families and friends of active duty soldiers.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2007

FBI: Extremists Might Be Driving Your Kids To School, But Don't Worry About It

Yeah, this is comforting:

Members of extremist groups have signed up as school bus drivers in the United States, counterterror officials said Friday, in a cautionary bulletin to police. An FBI spokesman said "parents and children have nothing to fear."

Asked about the alert notice, the FBI's Rich Kolko said "there are no threats, no plots and no history leading us to believe there is any reason for concern," although law enforcement agencies around the country were asked to watch out for kids' safety.

The bulletin, parts of which were read to The Associated Press, did not say how often foreign extremists have sought to acquire licenses to drive school buses, or where. It was sent Friday as part of what officials said was a routine FBI and Homeland Security Department advisory to local law enforcement.

Look, either extremists are a threat--hence the advisory--or they aren't. Informing law enforcement to watch out for known members of extremist groups driving school buses--I'll read this as terrorists until someone gives me good reason not to--and then telling parents not to worry is asinine.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (3)

March 15, 2007

Iranian Defector May Soon Be Wanted for Mass Murder

Ali Reza Asghari, the former Iranian deputy defense minister and General who is thought to have defected after years of spying on the Iranian government, is one of six Iranians cited in an international arrest warrant that may be issued by Interpol later this month for the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish Center that took 85 lives.

The six concerned are Imad Fayez Mughniyah, Ali Fallahijan, Mohsen Rabbani, Ahmad Reza Asghari, Ahmad Vahidi and Mohsen Rezai.

Applications for the arrest of Ali Akbar Velayati and Hadi Soleimanpour, as well as Mr Rafsanjani, were rejected.

No-one has ever been convicted of the 1994 bombing - the worst terror attack in Argentine history - and the government has admitted failures in its initial investigation.

Last year it said it believed Iran ordered the attack, and militant group Hezbollah carried it out.

Asghari is though to have been instrumental in founding Hezbollah in the 1980s, and was a key liasion between Hezbollah and the Iranian government.

The "Mr Rafsanjani" referenced in the article is former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:12 PM | Comments (1)

Khalid Sheik Mohammed Confesses

I have very little to add to what has already been said about Mohammed's confession, and think Jules Crittenden covers my disgust with Mohammed's self-aggrandizing quite well:

It’s all a matter of language and perspective. We’re really just the same. Until you remember that virtually all his intended targets in the Twin Towers were civilians. Every one of his intended targets in Bali and Mombasa was an innocent vacationer. All his targets on all those airplanes. It is inequivocably murder carried out not to achieve any military objective, rather for whatever political or symply psychological advantage and economic damage might be achieved by terror and chaos. He did it to impress people. He wraps himself in history and distortion and calls it war. It is revolting, and it is bullshit, but it is his right. He is allowed to speak and say whatever he wants in advance of the judgments that await him. And we can look at this vile filth, and consider it for what it is worth.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:33 AM | Comments (0)

Four al Qaeda Militants Sentenced to Death

Now, if they can only capture the three of them that are still on the run, they might be able to carry out the sentence:

Jordan's military court on Thursday sentenced to death four Iraqi al-Qaida militants charged with terror attacks on Jordanians in Iraq. Of the four, only one is in custody while the other three remain at large and were tried in absentia.

The court also handed down sentences to 10 others in the case also at large and believed to be in hiding in Iraq ranging from 15 years in jail with hard labor to life imprisonment.

The group's alleged mastermind, Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, was charged with leading the group of 14 in plotting attacks on trucks with Jordanian license plates on Iraqi roads to murder those on board.

As things continue to fall apart for al Qaeda in Iraq, I find that the execution of these death sentences are quite likely, whether or not these men ever see a Jordanian jail first.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:45 AM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2007

Clinton Won't Withdraw From Iraq

This won't endear her to the netroots, but then, what could? For those Democrats that have a toe in reality, however, Hillary just showed that she may be the first grown-up running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Well, almost:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

It is good to see that Hillary recognized the need to help support the Iraqi government, but her statement about not protecting Iraqis from sectarian violence, "even if it descended into ethnic cleansing," is troubling.

If "President Hillary" is serious that she would take no action in the event of an attempted genocide, then her behavior would verge upon criminal. If, however, Clinton is merely issuing "tough love" to encourage Sunni, Shia, and Kurd to work together, then her pronouncement makes far more practical sense.

It will be interesting to see how or if the other Democratic candidates will try to shift their positions as they watch Hilliary outmanuver them to the electable middle.

Update: Captain Ed critiques Clinton's statement more harshly.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:19 PM | Comments (5)

You Lost Another One?

I owe the French an apology. Until now, I thought that France was the only nation capable of losing a war that they were not fighting.

According to YNET News, yet another senior Iranian officer has gone missing:

Three weeks ago the Iranian armed forces command in Teheran lost contact with a senior officer who had been serving in Iraq with the al-Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, according to a senior Iranian official cited in the Wednesday edition of the London-based Arabic daily al-Sharq al-Awsat.


The Iranian source said that it is still unclear why contact with the officer, Colonel Amir Muhammad Shirazi, was lost. "It is possible that the American forces in Iraq arrested him along with a group of 13 Iranian military and intelligence officials," he said, adding that this is just one of the scenarios being investigated by Tehran.

Of course, this begs the question, "What was a senior Iranian al-Quds force commander doing in Iraq if he wasn't supporting the insurgency?" Don't expect the NY Times to dig too deeply into the existence of Colonel Amir Muhammad Shirazi, much less his disappearance.

The article also claims that another Iranian colonel was sentenced to death by an Iranian court for collaborating with American forces in the war Iran is not waging in Iraq, and that "dozens" of Iranian officers have also defected.

These allegations should be taken with a shaker of salt until they can be confirmed, but if these allegations are correct, Iran is hemorrhaging both intelligence and operatives at an alarming rate.

Update: This is too rich.

I picked up a link from Salon.com's Blog Report, and now instead of discussing the disappearing Iranian officers that were the subject of the post, I have Salon's liberal readers attempting to defend the 20th Century accomplishments of the French military.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:23 AM | Comments (14)

March 13, 2007

Second Verse, Same as the First

If you read either Left Behind from last week or The United Left of Defeat from yesterday, then this editorial from the Washington Post today might sound very familiar:

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

If anything, the WaPo editorial is more targeted in exposing the cynical nature of the "slow bleed" Democrats. Not only does this Executioner's Congress not care about the fate of the Iraqi people or the larger Sunni-Shia regional war that may result from their craven political acts, they also want their genocidal proposals implemented in time to benfit them politically. I know that I alluded to this, but this editorial takes them head-on in their defeatism.

I said it yesterday, and will reiterate it again today:

On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first. They nakedly place their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole. Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. They rank partisan politics above national interests. They are the United Left of Defeat; their stated agenda and goals shows clearly that they view the long-term health and well-being of United States of America—and the success of the state of Iraq, and the larger War against Islamic Terrorism—as secondary issues to their own continued quest for more political power.

Their primary and overriding interest of the Left is their own political success and vindication. They have created a belief system around the thought that if the United States is successful in helping the Iraqi people emerge from this conflict as a more-or-less stable parliamentary democracy, that the war would be a victory for George Bush and the neo-conservative movement.

They are incapable of seeing it as a victory for the Iraqi people, whom they have made abundantly clear though their choices of rhetoric and proposed legislation, are secondary citizens of the world, at best. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a victory in Iraq as being good for the United States, the Iraqi people, or the world at large. They have chosen sides, and they do not side with the best interests of our country, or that of other free nations.

I never thought I would live to see a day where a substantial portion of the American poltical establishment placed party politics above national security.

Sadly, that day has clearly arrived, as even the national media are beginning to pickup.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:01 AM | Comments (13)

March 12, 2007

The United Left of Defeat

The Los Angeles Times, of all places, posted an excellent editorial this morning, lambasting the defeatist cant that has been issuing forth from House Democrats, as Democrats responding to their left-wing base have continued their attempt to force a loss in the Iraq War by way of micromanaging our military into defeat.

Characteristically, it seems that liberal politicians such as John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, along with their strident defenders on the political left, have sought to frame the conflict in Iraq as a Republican-only war. Both in Congress and in the blogosphere, liberals see the Iraq War as a conservative political weakness, and think that by forcing a withdrawal, that they will gain political strength. Indeed, if they are successful in undermining the war effort, you can count on them claiming a victory, however fleeting that "victory" may be.

On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first. They nakedly place their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole. Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. They rank partisan politics above national interests. They are the United Left of Defeat; their stated agenda and goals shows clearly that they view the long-term health and well-being of United States of America—and the success of the state of Iraq, and the larger War against Islamic Terrorism—as secondary issues to their own continued quest for more political power.

Their primary and overriding interest of the Left is their own political success and vindication. They have created a belief system around the thought that if the United States is successful in helping the Iraqi people emerge from this conflict as a more-or-less stable parliamentary democracy, that the war would be a victory for George Bush and the neo-conservative movement.

They are incapable of seeing it as a victory for the Iraqi people, whom they have made abundantly clear though their choices of rhetoric and proposed legislation, are secondary citizens of the world, at best. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a victory in Iraq as being good for the United States, the Iraqi people, or the world at large. They have chosen sides, and they do not side with the best interests of our country, or that of other free nations.

As I noted last week, Democrats are quick to call for the end of American involvement in Iraq, while purposefully failing to mention the catastrophic political and human cost to Iraqi civilians that would result from the arbitrary and complete withdrawal that they hope for. They dare not speak of the all-out civil war that could result, nor the wider Sunni vs. Shia regional war that could develop. They have become an Executioner's Congress, willing to lay waste to Iraqi and other Middle Eastern lives to satisify the needs of their base for domestic liberal political consumption.

These same liberal politicians fail to speak about how a defeat in Iraq will be a major victory for Islamic extremism, and will extend, perhaps by decades, what has been rightfully identified as Our Children's Children's War. They purposefully fail to inform their constituencies that a loss in Iraq will lead to a rekindling of the same expansionist Islamic mindset that enabled the rise of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamic extremist groups.

Democrats are willing, even eager to hand George Bush a defeat in Iraq, but are unwilling to take credit for the loss they will hand to all Americans. Liberals love to tell us that the War in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists, but in their naked cowardice, Pelosi, Murtha, and their ilk refuse to mention how much more of a recruiting tool an American defeat in Iraq would be for these same extremist elements.

That such a Democrat-led defeat would be a boon for terrorist recruiters is obvious, and yet, Democrats will not acknowledge the effect their assistance will provide.

They are unwilling to tell their constituents the obvious truth of their actions, which is that terrorists inspired by a Democratic-led defeat in Iraq would seek to expand upon their Democrat-delivered victory. If Democrats are successful, our war against Islamic extremism will expand, not be brought to a close.

All of these truths are self-evident and readily apparent to those willing to face reality, but the political far left has long ago abandoned reality for something it prefers called a "reality-based" community. They pick and choose the reality to which they would respond, ignoring the inconvenient truth that their world exists only in as much as society's defenders—the same military and police that they typically despise—allow this illusion to survive.

Liberals refuse to address the fact that their plans for a U.S. defeat in Iraq weakens both Iraq and the United States, and that the defeat they long for will increase both terrorist recruiting and the possibility of more terrorist attacks.

The radical Left wing of the Democrat Party is driven by their own short-term political goals and refuses to view the future health and well-being of the United States as a whole as their primary concern. To defeat "George Bush's War," they are willing to sacrifice the sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families, and the lives of those future generations of American military and civilian families that will bear the bloody costs of their agenda-driven myopia. Of the tens of millions Iraqi lives that hang in the balance, they care even less.

As is evidenced in their words and deeds, liberal political success, however short-lived, is their primary and overriding goal. What is best for America and Americans are matters of ever-decreasing importance among those who would wreck the world for their fleeting, dishonorable moment in the sun.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:16 PM | Comments (25)

March 09, 2007

Are They Serious?

Filipino Muslims are protesting against a Christian preacher who said Muslims might have violent tendencies by calling for him to be beheaded.

I'm guessing they won't like this tee shirt, then.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:07 PM | Comments (1)

Rangers Lead the Way

Glenn got it posted first, but here's another photo of American combat soldiers in Baghdad, courtesy of embedded journalist Michael Yon.

American Warriors in Baghdad

Glenn also does a nice job of linking to other embeds, and reminds readers that these guys are all largely (if not exclusively) reader supported. Want to support the troops? Head on over and drop a few dollars to support the citizen-journalists that dare to go outside the wire to get you the stories that other media can't or won't provide.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:16 AM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2007

Radar Gun

Samarra to Baghdad
Michael Yon saw this on the road between Baghdad and Samarra this morning. Nothing conveys "slow down" quite like a 120mm cannon.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:53 PM | Comments (0)

Left Behind

As House Democrats trumpet the release of their "son of 'Slow Bleed'" legislation to evict American forces from the Iraq War, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis was credited with an interesting set of pull quotes in one too-telling Associated Press paragraph:

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the proposal would bring an "orderly and responsible close" to American participation in what he called an Iraqi "civil war."

Like the larger Democrat-led effort to lose the war, this statement avoids mentioning—purposefully, in my estimation—that the proposed election-time retreat would end just American involvement in the war. The Democrats refuse to embrace the consequences of such a retreat.

It is expected that the power vacuum left by a Democrat-forced American military retreat from Iraq would be filled by foreign nations fueling a sectarian war in Iraq that would be both civil and proxy in nature. Saudi Arabia has made clear their intention to provide military and financial resources to Iraq's Sunni minority to hopefully keep their co-religionists from being "ethnically cleansed," while Iran would continue or increase its military and financial support of Shia factions in hopes of gaining a sphere of influence over oil-rich southern Iraq.

The end result of the Democrat plan of defeat would be a war-torn landscape not too dissimilar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War, writ large.

A repeat of events like the Srebrenica massacre are possible in Iraq's future if Democrats have their way.

Democrats, of course, know this, but simply seem to find political games in America far more important than the regional destabilization and projected increase in civilian deaths their plan for defeat would bring.

Democrats claim to care about our troops, which they do, when it’s politically convenient and they’re fresh out of spit.

Looking Out

Sadly, the millions of Iraqi civilians that would suffer as a result of their plan for defeat don't matter nearly as much to Democrat politicians.

Iraqi children won't send out important action alerts over frappacinos, or fund presidential campaigns in either America. It isn't their grandchildren that will suffer and die if we leave before the job is done.

The Democrats won't mention the cost of pandering to their radical base.

Apparently the one thing too shameful to discuss is the legacy they would leave behind.


Update: Pretty good analysis, Mr Dorkage:

People here will tell you they are mostly afraid of one thing-that we will leave soon, like we have since Vietnam, Somalia, etc., and that they will then be at the mercy of the terrorists who seep in from Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Saudia Arabia. A self-fulfilling circle, helped out vastly by our 'anti-war' citizens back home, who ironically enable wars as this by forcing constant US retreats through our political process. People here - real people, not 'Jamil Husseins' - want us here to give them time to reform their society.

I speculate this is one of the reasons I observed such high morale in our soldiers here. They are wanted here, unlike, say, in San Francisco. But, I digress.

Update: Democrat plan is "failure at any cost." Ouch.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:49 PM | Comments (13)

Congo Uranium Arrests

What would Joe Wilson do?

The Democratic Republic of Congo's top atomic energy official is being held over allegations of uranium smuggling.

Atomic energy centre director Fortunat Lumu and an aide have been questioned since their arrest on Tuesday.

A large quantity of uranium is reported to have gone missing in recent years, although state prosecutor Tshimanga Mukeba did not reveal any figures.

He told the BBC an "important quantity" of uranium was taken from the nuclear centre and they were investigating.

DR Congo's daily newspaper Le Phare reported that more than 100 bars of uranium as well as an unknown quantity of uranium contained in helmet-shaped cases, had disappeared from the nuclear centre in Kinshasa as part of a vast trafficking of the material going back years.

But the BBC's Kinshasa correspondent, Arnaud Zajtman, says that as of yet, no evidence has been made public to support the allegations made by the newspaper.

It would be very intersting to know just how far back "years" entails, and who received the missing uranium. My completely unsubstantiated guess is that it ended up somewhere warm and sandy.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:05 AM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2007

Frontline Voices

On Monday, Newsbusters brought us a post about a visit to Iraq by NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, revealing the following:

Visiting Iraq, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams learned from Army officers that Iraqis want U.S. forces to remain in their country, from NBC News Baghdad reporter Richard Engel that Al-Sadr's insurgents have stepped down and are counting on pressure from anti-war opponents to provide them with victory, and from retired General and NBC News military analyst Wayne Downey that U.S. troops are proud of their mission. Traveling with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno for stories on his Monday newscast, Williams ran a clip of Army Colonel John Charlton proclaiming that Iraqis “do not want us to leave” and a soundbite from Army Lt. Colonel Charles Ferry who asserted: "The people here are very glad to see us.” Williams marveled: "You just said, 'They don't want us to leave.' That's the tenth time today I've heard that. I've got to go back to the States and do a newscast that every night has another politician or 12 of them saying, 'We have got to get out of that godforsaken place.'

MSNBC.com provides a version of Williams' story as well, closing with LTC Ferry's comments on the discrepancy between what American (mostly Democrat) politicians are saying about retreating in defeat, and the Iraqi civilian claim that they want us to stay and that they are happy we are there.

As for the morale of our soldiers, Micheal Yon noted in his dispatch "Meanwhile" yesterday (my bold):

There’s a lot of talk back at home that morale among American forces is low here. While writing this, I called Rich Oppel from the New York Times, who is in Baghdad, to ask him how morale looked from his vantage. Rich said that a lot of the soldiers are not happy with the extensions of their tours, something I have heard soldiers complain about also. However, I watch morale very closely. More closely than all else. Low morale in a particular unit can be the result of poor leadership in that unit, or just not getting mail, for instance. But gauging morale is not a simple affair of asking a few soldiers. A person has to live with them across Iraq. Having done so, my opinion is that overall troop morale is good to high. (If their morale could be bottled, it would probably would sell like crack, then be outlawed.)



williamsengledowning
Brian Williams, Richard Engle and GEN(R) Wayne Downing in Iraq experiencing some "technical dificulties" with their communications gear. Exclusive photo courtesy of Michael Yon, who is staying "just a few tents down" from them.

Iraqi civilians are telling our soldiers that they are happy they are there (something I've noticed not just in Ramadi, but in Baghdad and elsewhere). Obviously, not everyone is delighted with our presence—the militias, insurgents, terrorists, and criminal gangs in Iraq, and politicians, anti-war activists and many journalists worldwide come to mind—but the average Iraqi knows that the best chance they have of securing peace in their nation must rely on American forces backing Iraqi forces until the Iraqis alone are capable of providing their own security.

In the meantime, early reports on the Baghdad security operations thus far are carefully optimistic:

...the Bush administration says the president's decision to send more troops into Iraq is showing some "encouraging signs," though "too early" to call a success.

President Bush listed some of those "encouraging signs" in an address to American veterans.

They include the deployment of additional Iraqi army brigades in Baghdad, lifting restrictions on coalition forces to secure the capital, and rounding up more than 700 Shia extremists and large weapons caches.

The locals appear to be noting the changes as well.

Since us and Iraqi troops made their joint push into Baghdad, streets are getting busier. Stores that were closed down are re-opening and murders are down.

There has even been little resistance in Sadr City.

The last time American troops tried to secure this section of Baghdad they were met by Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi militia.

"If there's one thing that has jumped out at me, this being the edge of Sadr City, it's been how well we've been received by the people, how friendly a reception we've gotten," said U.S. Army Captain Noll.

surge
U.S. soldiers taking part in a search during Baghdad security operations two weeks ago. Photo courtesy of Michael Yon.

Presently, 21,500 U.S. soldiers are slowly building up in a "surge" to help the Iraqi government's security operations, and the Pentagon may request up to 7,000 more troops as operations expand into al Anbar province. As Brian Williams seemed to note in his broadcast (available at Hot Air), we can help the Iraqis secure their country, if only certain politicians would simply stop trying to undermine the effort.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:43 AM | Comments (2)

March 06, 2007

New Democrat Plan: Bleed Slower

Thanks be to Allah, for knowing a rat in sheep's clothing when he sees one:

House Democrats are pushing to add billions of dollars to President Bush's $93.4 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $900 million for troops suffering from brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.

An additional $2.5 billion would go to strengthen training and readiness for forces not deployed in war zones, and $1.4 billion would go to address housing allowance shortfalls.

At the same time, the Pentagon said Tuesday it needs about $1 billion more to support Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq. It also said it has decided against using the pending supplemental bill to procure combat and cargo aircraft, few if any of which could have been built in time to affect the war.

The $1 billion would support at least 4,000 additional support troops, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told the House Budget Committee. Up to a total of 7,000 support troops might needed, England said.

The Democratic add-ons for military health care, readiness and mine-resistant vehicles are aimed in part at making the bill more attractive to lawmakers, including Republicans who might be considering voting against the measure over language that would curb deployments of troops to Iraq who have had insufficient rest or training or who already had served there for more than a year.

Democrats are, as Allah notes, attempting to craft a "poison pill" of a bill:

The proposed compromise is a diluted version of Murtha’s slow bleed except instead of funding being cut off if troops are deployed without having met certain readiness levels, Bush would have the option of waiving the necessary certifications — as long as he does so publicly. They’re willing to continue paying for the war they hate, in other words; they just want to keep Bush’s face on the mission and make sure KIAs going forward can be blamed on inadequate training (a la Murtha blaming Haditha on “fatigue”) instead of enemy action.

Democrats aren't any less willing to lose the war than they were before, they're just more craven in their methods.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Michael Yon: Meanwhile

Why actually learning about the war from those who are there, matters:

With the odometer running over many embeds, Mellinger has taken me about 4,000 miles (total) up and down Iraqi roads, visiting units from north to south, east to west, showing that the military truly opens their doors to writers who will stick it out. They don’t even have to like you: my fights with the Army are well-known, yet they continue to open their doors. There’s a lesson in there. I wrote that Iraq was in a civil war shortly after covering the first elections. I wrote about commanders who did poorly, and ISF units that couldn’t shoot straight, and I wrote about the veneer of victory in Afghanistan cracking under the weight of a poppy-fueled Taliban resurgence. Yet they still let me in.

It’s a reminder of why I am so proud of my country, despite our many problems. It’s also a caution about why we must stick with our people who have been mostly abandoned at war. I understand the position of the journalists. Especially the ones who get blown up or shot at fairly regularly, but the informed interest of ordinary Americans is critical to the outcome of this war. And the truth is that our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of whom rarely (if ever) see a writer, are abandoned by default.

As always with Yon's dispatches, read the whole thing.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:13 PM | Comments (1)

Bin Laden Brother-in-Law Killed

Not new, but new to me.

Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law and mercenary recruited, was instrumental in recruitirg more than 1,000 young Filipino Muslims, including Abdurajak Abubakar Janjalani, to the Afghanistan jihad against the former Soviet Union was killed in Madagascar recently.

Reports said Khalifa was shot dead by unidentified gunmen in Madagascar. Agence France-Presse quoted Khalifa’s brother as telling the Dubai-based Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya television, that a gang of 25 to 30 people raided Khalifa’s room. Khalifa, who traded in gems, “was killed in cold blood while sleeping in his room" his brother, Malek, said.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Khalifa had recent contact with bin Laden, or that the death was necessarily anything other than crime-related.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:26 PM | Comments (2)

No Room for Success

At least that is what we find via memeorandum.com, as a poster using the pseudonym "Chris in Paris writes on liberal Americablog:

Nine US troops killed in explosions during combat, just on the heels of 28 Iraqis killed Monday in yet another round of bombings. Yesterday I heard plenty of chatter from the pro-war crowd who talked about the great successes of the latest campaign but I've been unable to see a change and hear of the same old bloody mess day after day. How much blood is enough for the pro-war crowd?

Shaun Mullen at The Moderate Voice writes:

The downtick in stories in the prints, on TV and online about violence in Baghdad is encouraging and would seem to be a result of the onset of Operation Imposing Law, the so-called “surge” security crackdown in the capital.

But the relative calm is illusory. Anti-American cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr has withdrawn to Iran and his Mahdi Army and ethnic cleansing squads have withdrawn into the shadows, and I suspect that it’s only a matter of time before the surge is declared a success, both cleric and army are heard from again and the downtick is history.

Then there are the tireless cheerleaders like Omar, who blogs at Iraq the Model and has been writing for Pajamas Media. Omar’s latest sighting of the light at the end of the tunnel was dutifully picked up by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

“Violent incidents are still decreasing in number and impact in Baghdad. Yesterday for instance the only reported incident was the abduction of an adviser to the minister of defense by gunmen in western Baghdad. It was less than 24 hours until the security forces succeeded in freeing the abducted general and arresting 4 of his captors.”

It is not my intention to deprecate Omar and Glenn. They mean well and I too want the security crackdown to succeed. But I winced when I read Omar’s words because I knew that it was only a matter of time before the calm was shattered.

In fact, it was less than 12 hours after he posted his wishful thinking that a suicide car bomber detonated explosives in a book market along busy Mutanabi Street in central Baghdad, killing 28 people and wounding 56 others. (Details here on the blast and deaths of nine U.S. soldiers north of the capital.)

Yes, Baghdad is a big place and the security sweep is currently focused in the Sadr City slum district. Troops cannot be everywhere. But in a war characterized by abysmally poor planning followed by four years of missteps, it is not merely premature to declare that Operation Imposing Law is going well after so short a time, it is folly.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into these comments, but "Chris in Paris" and Shaun Mullen both seem to be purposefully obtuse.

Yes, nine soldiers from Task Force Lighting died in two separate IED attacks north of Baghdad, and 28 Iraqis died Monday, just as 14 more Iraqis died nationwide today. I have little doubt that more Coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die tomorrow, and the day after that. People die in war.

But what "Chris in Paris" either cannot see in the very account he cited, or perhaps prefers not to see, is that not one of the deaths cited over the past two days in Iraq reported by this CNN article came through the once common practice of sectarian death squads kidnapping Iraqi citizens, torturing them, and dumping their bodies in the streets.

Mullen is right to be cautious, but he too, is far more pessimistic than objective, and apparently almost willing to declare any minor setback during the security plan as evidence of failure.

This past Saturday, Arab news broadcasts from Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Al-Sharqiya, Al-Hurra, Al-Iraqiya, Al-Fourat, Al-Baghdadiya, and Al-Sumariya --eight television stations in all-- did not issue a single account of sectarian kidnappings, torture and murder in Baghdad. None.

That is not a positive change?

On Sunday, more than a thousand U.S. and Iraqi soldiers swept through Sadr City, home of the Madhi Army, without a single shot being fired in opposition. On that day, just one Baghdadi, an editor of the independent Al Mashriq newspaper, was killed when a kidnapping attempt failed in what was almost assuredly a targeted attempt, not a random death squad act.

That is not a positive change?

29 members of al Qaeda have been captured across Iraq, including the two brothers of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq. In the same article they mention that Fuad Ahmed al-Mufraji, an assassination specialist dubbed "arrested the most dangerous man in northern Iraq," was also captured.

This follows on the heels of a battle last week where Iraqi forces routed an al Qaeda attack on a village in al Anbar, capturing 50 terrorists and killing 80.

These are not a positive changes?

Iraq is not a safe country by any stretch of the imagination, and the high points noted above are perhaps transitory in nature, but they are real, and they do show at least temporary improvements. It is a pity that both critics seem unwilling to weigh these concrete successes equally with setbacks both real and possible.

"Chris in Paris," and Shaun Mullen with him, seem intent on seeing only what they want to see. Are they ideologically immune to any accounts the show the slightest signs of improvement in Iraq?

It seems that like so many opponents of the war, they have far too much emotionally invested in failure.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (4)

The Air Bodies

Let's reorder a couple of key paragraphs from this New York Times article to make it more chronologically consistant, and see if you can tell what's missing:

On Sunday night, American forces at a small base in Tape Ahmed Beg, in Kapisa Province, northeast of the capital, Kabul, came under rocket fire at 9 p.m., the United States military said in a statement. When two men with Kalashnikov rifles were spotted entering a compound, the Americans called an airstrike, which ended the engagement, it said. [paragraph 5]

Nine members of a family, including five women and three children, were killed in an American airstrike in central Afghanistan late Sunday during a battle with militants, Afghan officials said Monday. [paragraph 1]

What is obviously missing from this story is the status of the two men with AK-pattern rifles that were the trigger for the airstrike.

Did they somehow survive the strike? Were the killed along with the five women and three children? Why did they retreat to that particular compound? Were they possibly returning to their own homes? Did they vanish into thin air?

As far as these curiously incurious reporters are concerned, that answer appears to be just as good as any.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:03 AM | Comments (1)

March 05, 2007

Collateral Damage

It has been a rough weekend for American forces in Afghanistan. In two separate instances, U.S. forces engaged with Taliban and al Qaeda forces have killed approximately 19 Afghan civilians, according to the U.K. Guardian:

Two incidents involving American forces have left around 19 Afghan civilians dead since yesterday, prompting furious protests against the US and Nato. In the first incident, up to 10 civilians were killed yesterday as a convoy of US marines fled after being attacked by a suicide bomber in a minivan in eastern Nangarhar province.

Nine Afghan witnesses said US marines had fired indiscriminately on civilian cars and pedestrians as they sped away, the Associated Press reported.

The US military said it was unclear what had happened and militant gunmen may have been to blame for the deaths.

Then today Afghan officials said nine civilians had been killed after a Nato air strike hit a house during a firefight between US forces and militants, killing nine Afghans who lived there.

Civilians die in war. No matter how many precautions we take, no matter how careful we try to be to target only combatants, our enemies purposefully hide among civilians, dress as civilians, and use occupied civilian dwellings as impromptu fortresses.

It is because of this that I have some reservations about the nature of the protests levied again U.S. and NATO forces in the wake of these two incidents. While any civilian life snuffed out by terrorists is worth the same as those killed by NATO forces, few Afghan protests seem to value these deaths equally, or if those protests do exist, they unerringly fail to attract worldwide media attention.

That is odd, considering how this particular media account concluded:

The US-based Human Rights Watch has estimated that more than 100 Afghan civilians died as a result of Nato and coalition assaults in 2006.

A count by the Associated Press, based on reports from Afghan, Nato and coalition officials, puts the overall civilian death toll in 2006 at 834, most from militant attacks.

If the accounts from Human Rights Watch and the Associated Press are close to correct, the Taliban and al Qaeda kill more Afghan civilians than do coalition forces by a ratio of roughly 8-1. Despite this huge disparity, I cannot recall the last time I read a media account where the civilian death toll exacted by these Islamist forces led to widespread protests.

Do Afghan citizens simply not care when their friends and relatives are killed by the Taliban or al Qaeda? I find that rather hard to believe.

Could it be that the same civilians who chant "Death to America! Death to Karzai!" today, do so knowing that they will suffer no retaliatory strikes from Taliban spies in their midst, fearing that if they protested the murders caused by the Islamists, that they would suffer a far worse fate than usually visited by a bullet or bomb? I suspect this is the case to a certain extent, and find it rather uncritical of the professional media not to notice nor report on this discrepancy.

It is a shame that civilians die in war, but equally shameful that the media frames the accounts of what transpired they way they have.

The events around the Nangarhar incident are very much up in the air, but the Guardian is almost libelous in their purposeful neglect of detail in describing the airstrike on the house in Kapisa.

They state:

...today Afghan officials said nine civilians had been killed after a Nato air strike hit a house during a firefight between US forces and militants, killing nine Afghans who lived there.

The air strike came after militants had fired on a Nato base in Kapisa province, just north of Kabul.

Later a house was hit, killing five women, three boys and a man, said Sayad Mohammad Dawood Hashimmi, Kapisa's deputy governor.

The Guardian presents the story of this airstrike in such a way as to make it seem like the airstrike may have accidentally hit a house full of civilians.

This is not the truth.

After the rocket attack on the NATO base, armed militants were observed retreating into the Afghan home. In a defensive measure, U.S forces called in a precision strike that leveled the building where the Taliban terrorists had retreated.

It was the Taliban that brought fire down on the "five women, three boys and a man" by using that home as a fighting position. It would be nice for the "professional" journalists at the Guardian and other news outlets to reveal that fact, but apparently, such facts only get in the way of the story they prefer to tell.


Accuracy, it seems, is also "collateral damage."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:52 PM | Comments (1)

650,000 Iraqis Have Died, Or...

...the Lancet Study is politically-driven fake news cooked up by a group of anti-war Democrat scientists that should probably be fired for academic fraud.

I called this study complete and utter crap months ago, but neve thought they'd stoop as far as the article indicates they may have.

Heh. Allahpundit notes the "perils of using stringers" to conduct reporting.

On that note, it might be worth mentioning that I'll be on KSFO 560 With Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan this morning discussing that other stringer-generated scandal, starring our favorite Iraqi Police Captain that never existed.

You can listen via online streaming at 6:05 PST/9:05 EST at KSFO 560 via the "listen now" link.

Update: For those of you who might have missed it, the KSFO interview will be replayed on the internet at 1:10PM Eastern time today at www.ksfo.com (click on LISTEN NOW).

For those of you just coming to this story, I'd recommend that you read the following:

J-Damn

The Jamil Hussein Name Game -- Iraqi General Weighs In

Iraqi General Disputes AP Claim on Jamil Hussein

AP Re-Enters Hurriyah; Is Unable to Find Lost Credibility

AP: The Art of the Dodge

And last but not least:

Hurriyah: Where We Go From Here

According to the Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman, "Jamil Hussein" never existed, and the Associated Press story of January 4 released by Steven R. Hurst is an apparent fabrication.

The Associated Press is apparently far more interested in burying any story that shows that their Hurriyah reporting was inaccurate, or that they allegedly used a falsified name for a source against their own code of ethics, than they are in transparent or accurate reporting.

Why am I not surprised?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:26 AM | Comments (7)

March 02, 2007

Rumors of War

AlBayynaAlJadidah
Correspondent: What do you think of the new Security Plan? Answer quickly… before the next explosion! [Al Bayyna Al Jadidah Newspaper] (1 MAR)

As we all know, the Baghdad Security Plan (BSP) has been underway for several weeks, and while it is far to early to judge how effective the program will be, the opinion of how the plan is progressing among Baghdadis is almost as important as any measurable yardsticks gauging success.

This morning, I was provided with a copy of an Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) newsletter, THE BAGHDAD MOSQUITO, 2 March 2007, Volume IV, Edition 1257.

The newsletter tracks accounts in the Iraqi media (newspapers, television, and radio), and perhaps as importantly, public opinion and commonly-shared rumors.

Here is a selection of some of the more interesting rumors and Iraqi opinion as related to OSINT yesterday, March 1, from Iraqi citizens. Please keep in mind these are rumors, and may or may not be true:

  • Sharqiya TV channel discovered from a secret source that a few days ago, Muqtada Al Sadr called his high level associates, including those in the government, and told them to leave Iraq within 12 hours.
  • Sunnis believe that the new Baghdad Security Plan (BSP) has focused only on Sunni areas. Interestingly, when Iraqi forces conduct solo raids without US forces, they make mass arrests of Sunnis without any concrete charges. When these same forces accompany US forces, only one or two Sunnis are arrested. The one or two that are arrested are usually arrested due to their possession of forbidden medium or heavy weapons.
  • Around three or four days ago, residents in the Kadhimiya area of Baghdad captured an Afghan suicide bomber. However, rather than turning the bomber over to coalition forces, the Mahdi Army attempted to interrogate the man but were unable to so they executed hi on the spot. It is believed the bomber was going to detonate himself in Kadhimiya Shrine.
  • Iran is sponsoring Al Qaida in Iraq’s activities in concert with pro-Iranian elements inside the Iraqi government. Iran provides funding and weapons to Al Qaida. Al Qaida then purposely operates in Sunni areas, where there may or may not be any actual Sunni resistance. Once Al Qaida begins its activities in a given Sunni area, pro-Iranian elements in the government advise the MNF that operations should be conducted in that area. Once MNF approval is given, then preferably Iraqi forces, under the cover of anti-Al Qaida operations, conduct ethnic cleansing and displacement operations of the targeted Sunni area.
  • Recently, since the beginning of the new BSP, a Shiite family that had been displaced returned to the Mansour area of Baghdad. When asked why they returned, the father of the family stated they came back because the Mahdi Army commander that had displaced them has been arrested by US forces.

The next group of rumors should be called, "Everybody hates Al Mahdi."

  • Some Iraqis believe that the US was behind the recent attempted assassination of VP Adil Abd Al Mahdi. They point out that the US searched the area in question an hour or two before the bombing occurred.
  • Some Iraqis believe that the recent attempted assassination of VP Abd Al Mahdi was a joint effort between the Sadr Movement and Dawa Party who both fear that Abd Al Mahdi will take the PM position from current PM, Nuri Al Maliki.
  • Some Iraqis believe that the recent attempted assassination of VP Abd Al Mahdi was carried out by forces related to former PM Ayad Allawi, who wants to take the PM position from current PM, Nuri Al Maliki.

And as promised, here is the OSINT report on how different sects view the new Baghdad Security Plan (BSP):

How Is The New Baghdad Security Plan (BSP) Going?

The group’s views on this question differed by their sects and the areas in which they live. A snapshot of some Baghdad areas follows.

The Dora area is witnessing daily clashes between the residents there and Iraqi forces because the residents do not and will not, accept the presence of Iraqi forces without their being accompanied by the US. This is based on the residence distrust of the Iraqi forces due to militia/Iranian infiltration of these forces and the mass arrests/kidnappings that have occurred there in the past. The residents are very appreciative of recent US efforts to provide them with fuel and heaters, as well as that the US forced the current Iraqi government to provide them with electricity. The people of Dora say they will accept a US/Iraqi Combat Outpost BUT until the residents can trust the Iraqi forces, only Sunni military members should be part of such an outpost. This includes a Sunni commander of these forces.

One area that has not improved with the new BSP is the Saydia/Bayaa area. This area is still witnessing displacements, kidnappings, and assassinations. However, militia and/or terrorist activity is not conducted in the open. Snipers are operating from the roofs of homes and buildings in the area. There have been a few US patrols but not many.

The Kadhimiya area of Baghdad has changed some. Prior to the new BSP this area was fairly calm due to the majority Shiite population and militia provided security. There is now more of a US patrol presence in the area and the militias no longer appear out in the open. However, when an event does occur, Mahdi Army members still appear on very short notice, as witnessed by Rumor # 9 above [note: this related to the rumor of the Afghan suicide bomber executed by the Madhi Army militia -- ed]. Services were and still are fairly good in this area.

The Mansour area has not changed much with the new BSP. The pattern for this area, as before, continues to be quiet days with little or no activity, to days of intense attacks and clashes. There are also still sporadic clashes between Sunni and Shiite militias in this area as well as kidnappings and assassinations between the two sects.

The area that has probably benefited the most under the new BSP is the Shaab/Hay Urr area of NE Baghdad. A Sunni resident reported that when the plan began, US forces conducted raids against suspected militia/terrorist targets which ahs succeeded in forcing the Mahdi Army out of this area. The Mahdi Army had been exercising heavy handed control of this area previously. Prior to the new plan, residents report finding five to ten bodies every morning and the control of the markets there by Mahdi Army though extortion. Now, there is no noticeable presence of militia. Some families that had been displaced have returned and the markets and neighborhoods are becoming lively again. The residents credit this improvement to the US forces efforts to chase the Mahdi Army from the area and the presence of the US Combat Outpost there as well.

Overall this week, Iraqis are more pessimistic about the new BSP than they were last week. This week’s pessimism is related to the continuing lack of confidence in the current Iraqi government which transfers into a lack of confidence in the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police. The group continues, for the most part, to believe that the current Iraqi government is still full of corruption and overwhelming Iranian influence.

In short, the Baghdadis interviewed may or may not be impressed with the BSP as executed thus far, depending on what they've seen in their neighborhoods, and what sect they belong to.

In areas where Coalition forces have been active (especially U.S forces), the residents seem to have a better opinion of how the plan is progressing. In areas where the plan is being implemented primarily by Iraqi forces, which many Sunnis do not trust, the plan is not seen as working, and it has led to conflict... which shouldn't be all that surprising, as government forces are focusing operations on stomping out the Sunni insurgents operating there, and have been accused in the past of operating as cover for Madhi Army death squads.

Areas where U.S. combat outposts have been established seem to be displacing the Madhi Army militiamen, and while it is far too early to know if a long-term change will result, these areas seem for the present to be "becoming lively again," and the residents credit U.S. forces.

Iraqi opinion overall is mixed, but more pessimistic, and this is likely due to expectations (or at least hopes) that the new BSP would reduce violence across all areas of Baghdad as soon as it began, and for those people who are not in the neighborhoods being secured first, there is some obvious disappointment.

The opinions contained in this edition of THE BAGHDAD MOSQUITO seem to reinforce the importance of the plan to "surge" more American forces into Baghdad over the next weeks and months.

It seems that regardless of whether the neighborhood is Shia, Sunni, or mixed, they seem to have more confidence in U.S. forces to be able to help bring security, at least in the short term. Sunni Baghdadis seem more receptive to U.S. forces than they do the Shia-dominated Iraqi police and military, but they do seem willing to accept predominately Sunni military units with Sunni commanders acting in conjunction with U.S. forces.

It is important to note that the BSP/"surge" is only in its opening stages, but that most citizens hope it will succeed. The downside of what they are reporting is that the changes have not been uniform nor widespread, and that Iraqis simply do not yet have faith in their own forces to enforce the plan equally across sectarian lines.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

March 01, 2007

Standing on Their Own: The View From Amiriyat al Falluja

While much of the blogosphere today seems focused on John McCain's announcement that he's zzzzz... ah, um, running for President (and being a putz), or which side of the blogosphere is the most profane, and the "professional" media is glued to Anna Nicole Smith's burial plans, Reuters has produced a story about the war in Iraq that seems to be having a very difficult time finding the front page.

Iraqi security forces killed dozens of al Qaeda militants who attacked a village in western Anbar province on Wednesday, during fierce clashes that lasted much of the day, police officials said on Thursday.

Sunni tribal leaders are involved in an escalating power struggle with Sunni al Qaeda for control of Anbar, a vast desert province that is the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq.

Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul Karim Khalaf said foreign Arabs and Afghanis were among some 80 militants killed and 50 captured in the clashes in Amiriyat al Falluja, a village where local tribes had opposed al Qaeda.

A police official in the area, Ahmed al-Falluji, put the number of militants killed at 70, with three police killed.

If you read the entire article, you'll note something that should be of great interest to readers here in the United States: when al Qaeda attacked the village, residents of this Anbar province town turned not to the U.S. military to take back their homes, but Iraqi security forces, and it was these Iraqi security forces, with no U.S. military involvement at all, that crushed the al Qaeda attack.

Amiriyat al Falluja is only a small town in western Iraq, and it is by no measure the largest battle here in Anbar's past or future, but this battle still bears noting. Why? It is the embodiment of what both Democrats and Republicans should be hoping for in regards to the future of Iraq.

In this town, on this day, Iraqi soldiers and policemen fought a pitched battle against a sizable force of al Qaeda fighters, and prevailed without our guidance, and without our intervention. They won this battle convincingly, standing on their own. What's more, the local citizens trusted them to be able to do so.

This is perhaps an isolated incident in an isolated corner of the western Iraqi desert, but it is, after all, exactly what we've hoped for. Iraqi policemen and soldiers came through for their fellow Iraqi citizens, and carried the day. We've been waiting for such news for four long years.

It's a shame that few of us in this country seem destined to ever hear about it.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:03 PM | Comments (10)

February 28, 2007

Palestinian Crowd Control

Liveleak.com provides the following disturbing but intriguing video of an alleged Hamas sniper dispersing a group of Fatah gunmen with one well-place shot.

Content warning for... well, you'll see at the 27-second mark.

Early in the clip, we see a group of gunmen, which the person who posted this video clip thinks belong to the Palestinian Fatah party, which, depending on your point of view and perhaps which branch of Fatah you are talking about, may be viewed as a legitimate part of the Palestinian government, or as a terrorist organization. You'll note that all or most of the gunmen are wearing what can loosely be defined as a uniform, of sorts: dark, short-sleeved shorts, long black pants, various kinds of military web gear, and AK-pattern rifles.

Based upon the way they are clustered, it seems evident that they have little or no military training. A burst from a machine gun or an RPG strike could easily decimate the tightly-bunched group of at least six gunmen, not to mention the none-too bright bystanders only feet behind them. If this is representative of how Palestinian civilians typically observe urban combat, the Israeli Defense Forces deserve the Nobel Peace Prize every year for not killing thousands of them when engaging legitimate Palestinian military targets.

At the 26-second mark, the lead gunman steps away from the cover of the wall and raises his rifle to fire. A split second later, he squeezes off a shot as his last mortal act before collapsing from a single shot to the central nervous system a split second later.

Several bystanders then rush in with several of the other gunmen to drag the man who has just be shot out of the line of fire, some with hands raised. the group of gunmen and their supporters then sage a rapid retreat with the body of their martyr. It wasn't pretty, but a single shot ended this particular skirmish before it actually began.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:36 PM | Comments (10)

Iranians State "Right" To Pursue Kurdish Rebels Into Iraq

Ostensibly, this means they won't have any problem if we decide we need to return the favor:

Iran's forces may cross into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels if the government in Baghdad can't expel the militants from border areas, an Iranian commander said.

"I warn Iraq's Kurdish movements and anti-revolutionary armed insurgents who are linked with foreigners that Iraq's government must oust them from the region," Revolutionary Guards leader Yahya Rahim Safavi was cited as saying today by state-run Mehr News. "Otherwise the Revolutionary Guards, to protect the security of the country and Iranian people, will consider it as their right to chase and neutralize them beyond the borders."

I hope that U.S. State Department diplomats will take measures to make sure this is a reciprocal "right" that can be enjoyed by Coalition military forces as they meet with Iranian diplomats as part of an international meeting on Iraq, but somehow I doubt it.

Update: If I was a Kurdish rebel, and this is an example of the kind of pursuit the Iranians have in mind, I'm not sure that I'd be all that concerned.

The Iranians sure are lucky that the Kurds seem to be having a harder time finding EFPs than their neighbors further south.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:12 PM | Comments (5)

February 27, 2007

Taliban Claims Attempt on Cheney

File this one under wishful thinking:

A Taliban suicide bomber killed up to 12 people at the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday in an attack the rebels said was aimed at Dick Cheney, but the visiting U.S. vice president was not hurt.

An American and South Korea soldier were killed, as well as a U.S. government contractor whose nationality was unknown, NATO and Korean officials said. NATO said 27 people were wounded.

A Reuters photographer at the scene at Bagram Airbase, 60 km (40 miles) north of Kabul, saw eight bodies in addition to NATO's tally of four dead, putting the toll at 12.

"We wanted to target ... Cheney," Taliban spokesman Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by phone from an undisclosed location.

An terrorism expert cited on WPTF radio stated that there was possibly a leak from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) revealing Cheney's trip to Bagram, which followed on the heels of the Vice President's trip to Pakistan, in which Cheney asked Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to crack down on al Qaeda and Taliban elements operating out of the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border.

It almost goes without saying that the suicide bombing attempt, while bloody, was a futile effort. Bagram is a huge airbase, and Cheney was far from the edge of the base where the attack occurred, and under multiple layers of security. Almost any other kind of attack—mortars or rockets come to mind—would have still likely failed, but still would have had a far greater chance of success than the truck bomb on the edge of the perimeter. Instead of getting anywhere near the Vice President, the suicide bomber instead killed several soldiers and the rest of the victims appear to be civilian truckers and workers waiting to have their vehicles searched before entering the base.

It will be very interesting to see how Musharraf reacts to this apparent leak from within his nation's security service.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:06 AM | Comments (4)

February 26, 2007

Pat Dollard: Living With Snipers

Pat Dollard's letting me run an unedited version of Living with Snipers from his "Young Americans" Iraq War documentary series as a semi-exclusive (avialable in full only here on CY and patdollard.com). Content warning for language. Thanks to Pat's web guy Chad Coleman for setting up the embed code.

Update: Hot Air has a more polished, abbreviated and cleaner (language-wise) version of this clip for those of you who may be sucking your employer's bandwidth.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:50 PM | Comments (2)

Alleged Sunni Rape Victim an Apparent Mormon

As relayed by a source in Iraq, Al-Iraqiya television at 9:00 PM had breaking news about the investigation of the rape alleged by Sabrine al-Janabi, the woman that brought rape charges against Iraqi policemen one week ago today. According to the account relayed this morning, it seems like her name is false and that she has more than one husband, to boot:

The channel carries a report by its correspondent Thamir al-Shammari on the alleged rape of an Iraqi woman called Sabrine al-Janabi. The report says: "The investigation committee that was formed to look into the case revealed initial facts about the real name of Sabrin al-Janabi, which is Zaynab al-Shammari, who is married to more than one man according to official papers. She also has a daughter, according to the Interior Ministry undersecretary, who chairs the investigation committee." The undersecretary is shown saying that it has been proved that Zaynab was married to two men at the same time, which is a violation of the law and Islamic law.

This case just keeps getting stranger.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:37 AM | Comments (1)

February 23, 2007

More on that Iranian Fauxtography

As you might recall, Charles Johnson caught the Iranian Fars News Agency in a crude attempt to PhotoShop "evidence" showing the United States was supplying insurgents in Iran with munitions. With my background in things that go bang, I noticed and commented on the fact that ammunition in the manipulated picture was nothing less than old Winchester USA civilian-grade practice ammunition.

Several readers chimed in to date the ammunition packaging to 10-20 years old, and several sent in photos to prove it.

One of those readers, Don Jordan, went so far as to contact Olin Corporation, Winchester's parent company, to get the official word from the company itself, and they provided the following response:

Mr. Jordan,

Thank you for visiting Olin's website. Your inquiry was forwarded to me
for response.

The ammunition boxes appearing in the picture are similar to commercial packaging we began using about 20 years ago and subsequently discontinued using approximately 15 years ago. I also feel it important to note that Winchester is a proud supporter of our military forces and complies with all U.S. Departments of State, Commerce and Treasury regulations with regard to the sale of our products. Although we believe this photo has been altered, we do take this allegation seriously and can assure the public that Winchester has not, does not and will not supply any product to Iran or any other country or person that does not meet the approval of the U.S. Government.

I hope this information is helpful, and I thank you for contacting us.

Ann Pipkin
Olin Corporation

Vintage ammunition and a poorly 'Shopped picture.

The boys at Far News just aren't very clever.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:34 PM | Comments (0)

Can I See Some ID?

soldieriraq
"Yeah, I just saw that guy toss a grenade into an orphange, but since I can't see his al Qaeda ID card from here, Harry Reid said I have to let him go."
Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.


Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:46 AM | Comments (13)

Controversial Iraqi Rape Claim May Be "Red-On-Red"

I first heard of the allegations that a Sunni woman was raped by three Iraqi police officers they way many bloggers did, on an Iraqi blog called Baghdad Burning, where a blogger using the pseudonym "Riverbend" reported watching a 20-year-old woman by the name of Sabrine Al-Janabi reporting her alleged ordeal on al Jazeera television:

As I write this, Oprah is on Channel 4 (one of the MBC channels we get on Nilesat), showing Americans how to get out of debt. Her guest speaker is telling a studio full of American women who seem to have over-shopped that they could probably do with fewer designer products. As they talk about increasing incomes and fortunes, Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her. You can only see her eyes, her voice is hoarse and it keeps breaking as she speaks. In the end she tells the reporter that she can’t talk about it anymore and she covers her eyes with shame.

It is worth noting that discussing rape is taboo in Arab cultures, where the "honor killings" of rape victims is an accepted practice, and that for a woman to come out to the broadcast news the day after such an attack and describe it in detail, anywhere in the world on camera, is highly atypical, to say the least.

Throw in the fact that al Jazeera got an exclusive on this--they've been expelled from Iraq for biased reporting-- and note that some of the language used by Al-Janabi were "antithetical to Iraqi national unity" as one expert put it, that the Association of Muslim Scholars (an al Qaeda-aligned group whose leader Harith Dhari fled Iraq on charges of inciting terrorism in December) was right there to denounce the alleged rape, and that leading Sunni politicians immediately used this alleged attack to start questioning the Baghdad security plan just as the "surge" was cracking down hardest on Sunni terrorist groups, and you've got plausible reason to question the timing and delivery of the story.

This is not to say that rapes have not occurred in Iraq at the hands of security forces, as they almost certainly have--the alleged rape of a 50-year-old woman in Tal Afar by four soldiers, stopped by a fifth at gunpoint seems quite plausible--but the choreography of the events surrounding Al-Janabi's account bear further scrutiny, especially in light of the fact it is being used by Sunni politicans and insurgent groups as a rallying point to try to thwart the Baghdad security plan, that at the moment, is hitting them the hardest.

Presently, it appears the politicians and the terrorists are trying to use issue to break the security plan on sectarian lines, alleging that the Shia-run police are attacking Sunni women.

There is just one problem with that theory: according to Yassen Mageed of the Iraqi Prime Minister’s office, and reported on Al Iraqiya TV Wednesday; all three officers that Al-Janabi alleged raped her are Sunni.

I'm presently in the process of trying to get Mageed's statement verified, and hoping the get the names, ranks and confirmation of the sect of these three officers through my contacts in the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. The MOI is currently conducting an investigation of Al-Janabi's rape allegations, and once the investigation is complete, I'm told they plan to go on the record with their findings.

Surprisingly enough, the allegation by Yassen Mageed on Al Iraqiya TV that the three accused officers are Sunni does not appear to have been picked up by the world press.

As the allegation that this is a Sunni-on-Sunni crime would certainly dampen the rhetoric of Sunnis attempting to use this incident to force an end to the "surge," I find it quite interesting that the world media has completely failed to pick up this story.

Update: An account on Fox News now reports that two of the three policement accused are Sunni:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has exonerated the three policemen accused in the alleged Baghdad rape following an investigation that lasted less than a day. He accused Sunni politicians of fabricating the allegation to undermine support for the security forces during the ongoing Baghdad crackdown. Some Shiite lawmakers said the three included two Sunni Arabs.

They're slow, but better late than never. I do wonder, however, why this development isn't getting more attention.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:18 AM | Comments (3)

February 22, 2007

The Duke Lacrosse Player The Media Won't Focus On

Mary Katharine Ham posts a touching tribute to Army Ranger Jimmy Regan... the ultimate Duke lacrosse player, killed by a roadside bomb on February 9 in northern Iraq his fourth combat tour.

Regan's mourning father notes:

"What is written in the papers and what is being politicized out there by our candidates is undermining our service," said James Regan, a senior vice president at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a Manhattan financial services investment bank.

"These gentlemen that are out there are mission-focused," he said of the troops. "They're trying to do the best job they possibly can. There have been mistakes made, why even list them? ... You cannot put men in the field of battle and then change your mind and go out as a whip-dog. Let the men do their job."

I'm fairly certain that last line was directed at Okinawa Jack, Blinky Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats that are desperately trying to think of ways to lose the war in Iraq.

Make sure you read the whole thing.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:25 AM | Comments (4)

February 21, 2007

Chicago Cousins Plotted Iraqi Terror Attacks

And then there were five:

Two cousins were arrested here Wednesday on charges of conspiring to commit terrorist acts against American military personnel in Iraq, as well as others abroad, in an Islamic holy war against the United States and its allies.

The defendants, Zubair A. Ahmed, 27, and Khaleel Ahmed, 26, were taken into custody at their Chicago homes after a federal grand jury in Cleveland returned a fresh indictment in a pending terrorism case in which three Ohio men are already awaiting trial in Toledo.

The new indictment accuses the two Chicago men of plotting with the Ohioans “to kill or maim persons in locations outside of the United States,” including members of the armed forces serving in Iraq.

I'm going out on a limb and guessing they didn't vote Bush/Cheney in '04.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:35 PM | Comments (14)

Experts Warn British Drawdown Could Lead to Violence

I thought folks like John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi were telling us that a withdrawal from Iraq would result in a peaceful nation of lollipops and bunnies.

Obviously, I misunderstood:

Britain's planned reduction in its force in southern Iraq could empower Iran and lead to more bloodshed between rival Shiite Muslim groups, analysts warned Wednesday.

The area around Basra is less violent than Baghdad, and sectarian killings are rare, in part because it is overwhelmingly Shiite. But the government's authority there is rivaled by armed groups that are "thoroughly intertwined with criminal enterprises," according to a report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"In the coming year, the drawdown of British forces in the deep south will likely be accompanied by an upsurge of factional violence as the long-delayed fight for local supremacy begins in earnest," said the report, written by Iraq security specialists Michael Knights and Ed Williams.

Of course, these guys are just Iraq security specialists, so they probably don't know near as much as Okinawa Jack and Blinky.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:22 PM | Comments (4)

Another One Down

Undercover Israeli soldiers disguised as Palestinians ambushed and killed Mahmoud Abu Obeid today, a leader of either the Islamic Jihad if you want to listen to U.S news media, or a leader of the Al-Quds Brigades if you'd rather trust Palestine Today.

The second account provides the details:

Eyewitness reports said that an undercover Israeli army unit entered the city using a civilian car with Palestinian license plates. Troops shot Abu Obeid at close range in the city center in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Witnesses added that after the troops shot Abu Obeid from the car, one of the unit members walked out of the car and shot Abu Obeid a few more times to confirm his death. During Abu Obeid's funeral, the Islamic Jihad said it would have revenge on his assassins. Israeli army sources claimed that Abu Obeid was planning what they described as a large-scale bombing in Tel Aviv.

Paul Campos could not be reached for comment, as he is currently drowning in his own embarrassment.

"Beclowning" must really hurt.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:43 PM | Comments (1)

February 20, 2007

Desperate Insurgents Detonate Chemical Bomb

A chemical tanker carrying chlorine gas and equipped with a bomb killed 5-6 Iraqi civilians and injured over 100 when detonated outside a restaurant in the Iraqi town of Taji:

A tanker carrying chlorine gas exploded Tuesday morning outside a restaurant in the Iraqi town of Taji, killing at least six people, an Interior Ministry official said. At least 105 other people were either injured by the blast or poisoned by the fumes.

The official said a bomb on board the tanker caused the explosion.

Baghdad Security plan spokesman Gen. Qassim Atta had different casualty figures, telling state-run al-Iraqiya TV that five people died in the blast and 148 were poisoned by the gas.

Taji is located about 12 miles (20 km) north of Baghdad.

Somewhat ironically, Taji was home to a Saddam-era airfield and Iraqi Republican Guard base that had a large complex used to manufacture chemical weapons. UNSCOM found 6,000 canisters at the base that would have been filled with chemical weapons for 122mm rockets. In 1998, UNSCOM weapons inspectors found that the Iraqis had loaded VX nerve agent into missile warheads prior to the 1990-91 Gulf War for apparent use against the coalition, but these weapons were never used.

The use of a chemical bomb in Iraq is a new escalation for the Sunni insurgency, and one that may indicate a certain level of desperation for those who would use a weapon that comes with such a stigma. Based upon the nature of the weapon, it's location, and its target (a civilian restaurant) is reasonable to make the assumption that the remnants of what used to be al Qaeda in Iraq, which has folded along with other collapsing Sunni insurgent groups into an organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq, is behind the bombing.

The group was created last year as coalition forces continued to decimate various elements of the Sunni insurgency, and the survivors decided to come together "to unify their efforts and coordinate attacks" in a futile effort to establish a Sunni caliphate within Iraq under Sharia law.

Last August, al Qaeda in Iraq "oveplayed its hand" when it murdered Sheik Khalid of the Albu Ali Jassim tribe, and in response, Sunni tribes have been actively hunting and killing insurgents in a movement of Sunni tribes known as "the Awakening."

Since then, al Qaeda and its increasingly fewer affiliate Islamists has more often been the hunted than the hunter, and the use of a chemical bomb today hints at the level of desperation they have now reached.

While the western media is almost certain to interpret the attack as an increase in the level of violence to counter the "surge" of American and Iraqi troops and implementation of the the Petraeus plan designed to crush the remaining al Qaeda strongholds, it is doubtful they will recognize, much less publicize, the level of desperation that the Sunni Islamists militants in Iraq have reached to use a weapon that can only diminish their collapsing support.

al Qaeda in Iraq is dying, and there is a noticeable feeling that momentum is shifting no only in Iraq, but at home, to finish this war with victory (h/t Instapundit).

The Sunni Islamists in Iraq are becoming ever more desperate. The war in Iraq is far from over, but there seems little chance that these elements of the insurgency, increasing turned upon by the very Sunni tribes that once made up their base of support, will survive as any sort of cohesive force.

Update: Hot Air reminds us that this was not the first attempt to detonate a chemical bomb, just the first successful attempt.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:55 AM | Comments (1)

February 19, 2007

Surge Impact in Baghdad

A source in Iraq has forwarded me a copy of the DynCorp CIVPOL Intel Report from Feb 15-16, which shows the kind of impact that the "surge" in Baghdad is having on the various Sunni insurgency and Shia militia elements operating there.

DynCorp is a United States-based private military contractor which helps train police in both Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to providing teams of military contractors in other theaters. According to Wikipedia, DynCorp also assisted recovery efforts in Louisiana and neighboring areas after Hurricane Katrina.

From the summary:

There was a total of 24 incidents reported during this period, which was the lowest total recorded in over a year. The low total can be linked not only to the new security plan but the torrential rain during the evening of the 15th which severely hampered the emplacement of IEDs. Several reports through open media sources state that insurgents continued to attempt to disrupt the new security plan with the use of IDF, IEDs and VBIEDs and they had little, if any, effect to slow the US-Iraqi program.

During the review period, US and Iraqi forces pushed deeper into Sunni militant strongholds in Baghdad, where cars rigged with explosives greeted their advance. In the Doura District two parked cars wired with explosives were triggered as a joint US-Iraqi patrol rolled past. The convoy was unharmed, but the blast killed at least four civilians and wounded 15. The explosions did little to disrupt the security sweep attempting to weaken militia groups' ability to fight US-allied forces (as well as each other). Most of the latest resistance has come from Sunni factions, which perceive their Saddam Hussein-era influence slipping away as the majority Shiites extend their political force and bolster ties to Iran. The Pentagon hopes its current campaign of arrests and arms seizures will convince average Iraqis that militiamen are losing ground.

A leader of the main Sunni bloc in parliament, Adnan al-Dulaimi, claimed the US-led sweeps have "started to attack" mostly Sunni areas. "It should concentrate on those who are perpetrating the violence and terrorist acts in all districts," he said; an apparent reference to the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City.

Throughout the capital, US and Iraqi soldiers set up dozens of roadway checkpoints and conducted top-to-bottom searches of vehicles and motorbikes. Generally the public’s sentiment is that they are willing to put up with delays so long as the security sweep shows some results after bombings that have killed hundreds of civilians this year.

The US military said that five suspected militants had been detained and numerous pistols, rifles, AK-47s and small arms munitions seized during searches of more than 3,000 structures since an operation began Tuesday in mainly Shiite northeastern Baghdad. It also said clearing operations were continuing in the predominantly Sunni northern neighborhood of Adhamiyah.

According to ministry officials, The number of Iraqi civilians killed in Baghdad's sectarian violence fell drastically during the review period, crediting the joint US-Iraqi security operation that began in force just days ago. Iraqi army Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, a spokesman for the Baghdad commander, said only 10 bodies had been reported by the morgue in the capital, compared to an average of 40 to 50 per day.

Two charts in the report show the overall decreasing level of violence in Baghdad over the timeframes of 01-02 Feb through 15-16 Feb, and 09-10 Feb through 15-16 Feb respectively.

dyncorp_incidents
dyncorp_incidents2

The abbreviations in the chart above are for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), small arms fire (SAF), indirect fire (IDF - typically meaning mortars), and COMP which, quite frankly, has me stumped.

The report also mentions a tantalizing vehicle heist believed orchestrated by the Madhi Army, which may hint that another attack on coalition forces like the Karbala incident thought to have been carried out by Iranian Quds Force commandos that saw U.S. soldiers kidnapped and killed in a sophisticated raid, may be on the horizon:

DynCopr Armored vehicles stolen by Madhi Army-Bumper numbers A223 (Black Suburban) and A 60 (Green Chevy Suburban). Vehicles stolen while enroute from FOB Warhorse-May possibly be used in attck [sic] similar to Karbala or as VBIEDs.

Obviously, this report does not address the most recent attacks 30 miles north of Baghad, which occurred after this report was released, nor the smattering of attacks inside Baghad itself over the weekend.

Jules Crittenden notes how the media seems to be hoping and waiting for a Tet Offensive type attack:

This raises a question I’ve been wondering about. We’ve seen surge results, and we’ve seen the brief peace broken. No surprise here. Obviously it is to the benefit of the enemy to paint the surge as a failure, and well with the enemy’s capability to keep launching attacks. They can continue launching sporadic attacks as they are able, and the Surrender Camp will seize on them as signs of failure.

An attack like this on a base is an attention grabber, but it doesn’t sound like it involved a human wave assault, and for an alert and well-defended base, probably never threatened to amount to more than deadly harassment. Awaiting more details on that.

Is the enemy capable of anything like Tet-like offensive? I highly doubt it. No unified command and control; little cooperation among groups; nothing close to the necessary number of troops; and the U.S. is putting heavy pressure on all the leadership … al-Qaeda, Baathists, Mahdi Army, Iranians … everyone’s on the run. If anything, a campaign of coordinated frontal assaults would be a great opportunity to break the enemy … just as it did in Tet. The threat is political.

It is worth noting that the Tet Offensive Crittenden references was a crushing military defeat for the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies, that saw the Viet Cong in particular decimated and operationally crippled, and that it was the American media helped turn the route (an estimated 45,000 VC and NVA were killed, versus just 4,324 KIA for allied forces, roughly 2,800 of them South Vietnamese) into a propaganda victory for the North Vietnamese.

Despite more attacks by Sunni and Shia terrorists and Congressional Democrats led by John "Okinawa" Murtha, there is every indication that the Baghdad "surge" is having an impact at reducing the overall level of violence in Iraq's capital.

Let's just hope that we can see marked improvements that even the press can't deny before Democrats can organize a successful surrender.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM | Comments (5)

February 16, 2007

Democratic Change In Direction

whiteflag2
"The bipartisan resolution today may be nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the president: we here in Congress are committed and supporting our troops,” Pelosi said. “The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.”
whiteflag

Meanwhile, U.S. and Iraqi troops faced little resistance as they continued on security sweeps, as the number of violent deaths in Baghdad plummeted from 40-50 a day to 10.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:17 PM | Comments (69)

A Bad Place to Regroup

One doesn't have to be von Clausewitz to figure out that when folks start shooting at you, taking cover behind something that will stop bullets and shrapnel is probably in your best interests.


cover

Taking cover within a concave bucket of a front-end loader that could deflect incoming fire into your body, though... probably not the best idea.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:03 PM | Comments (5)

February 14, 2007

How to Fail at Suicide Bombing

According to Liveleak.com, this VBIED suicide bomber survived an attack on American forces in Baghdad... briefly.

He wasn't the only one who failed (content warning for language).

Funny how the failed suicide bombings and foiled IED attacks rarely get reported in the media, isn't it?

Bonus: Some pre-release footage from Pat Dollard's documentary, Young Americans.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:38 PM | Comments (3)

Copperheads Decide on How to Define Screw 'Em

Lacking the moral courage to simply vote against the war in Iraq, House Democrats are instead working with anti-war groups--no doubt including the collection of Islamists and Marxists profiled here--to impose limitations that would reduce the number of U.S troops available for duty, putting American soldiers at risk as they plot their strategy for defeat:

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Frankly, I'm not sure how we should respond when members of our own political class proudly declare that they are admitting to planning a "D-Day" against our own military.

support_troops

Gaius, who has a son currently deployed in Iraq, is not happy:

They frankly do not care how much damage they do to the United States in their blind lust for political power, do they? They frankly don't care that they will, in effect, tie the hands of the military commanders with this strategy.

No, they don't, because in their eyes, victory is not an option.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:15 PM | Comments (8)

Psy-Ops?

Reports issued last night saying that the man dubbed "Mullah Atari" for his video game addictions, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, may have fled from Iraq to Tehran, are being disputed:

The chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq said Wednesday that Muqtada al-Sadr has left the country and is believed to be in Iran, despite denials from the radical Shiite cleric's supporters. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell declined to comment on the reasons al-Sadr had left the country or give more details.

"We will acknowledge that he is not in the country and all indications are in fact that he is in Iran," Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad.

Lawmakers and officials linked to al-Sadr have denied that he had left the country, with one saying the cleric had met with government officials late Tuesday in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

An Iraqi government official said al-Sadr was in Najaf as recently as Tuesday night, when he received delegates from several government departments. The official, who is familiar with one of those meetings, spoke on condition of anonymity because he has no authority to disclose information on his department's activities.

Lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of Sadrist bloc in parliament, also insisted al-Sadr had not left the country.

"The news is not accurate because Muqtada al-Sadr is still in Iraq and he did not visit any country," al-Rubaie told The Associated Press.

The charge, accurate or not, could have the following ramifications.

  • If he has already fled, his credibility drops. It will be very difficult for him to retain any political credibility or inspire his followers while hiding in another country, and he might never be able to regain his prestige.
  • If still in Iraq, it makes it far more difficult for al-Sadr to leave. If Al-Sadr is still in Iraq as alleged by his followers, political pressure from his own supporters will make it far more difficult for him to actually flee without suffering severe penalties, perhaps dissolving his credibility entirely among both his political allies and his militant followers
  • Locking him in to staying makes his capture or death more likely. Despite the near-hysterical shrieking of the fringe left, the Bush Administration has made it abundantly clear that they would prefer to no engage Iran in a war, so if al-Sadr made it to Tehran, he would be far out of U.S. reach. As long as he is in Iraq—perhaps kept there by a fear of becoming marginalized if he fled—then he will be much easier to target, should coalition forces decide that he needs to be taken down.

Whether this is a psychological operation or not is nearly irrelevant at this point. Al-Sadr is now on the defensive, which is precisely where the coalition prefers him to be.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:00 AM | Comments (2)

February 12, 2007

None So Blind

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

--Various

Some of the deep thoughts of HuffPuffer Cenk Uygur, regarding the Iran weapons presentation released over the weekend:

Then the officials made the highly dubious claim that 170 US troops have been killed by these so-called Iranian weapons. Really? They CSI'ed the scene of all the troop deaths and found forensic evidence linking these weapons to exactly 170 deaths. I call bulls**t [edited].

During the demonstration they talked at length about these cylindrical pipes that shoot molten hot balls of copper through the armor of US vehicles. In all of the gruesome stories of our men and women dying in Iraq, I have never heard of this weapon before or any deaths being attributed to it.

Defensetech.org wrote about them being used by insurgents in Iraq on Aug 3, 2005. Other news organizations have written dozens of articles about them as well.

Perhaps Uygur has never heard of these weapons, but they're hardly new:

Explosively formed projectiles (EFP) have been used to defeat armored vehicles for more than 30 years.

What does the UK Telegraph have to say about EFPs? Quite a bit in this June 25, 2006 article alone:

The first picture of an Iraqi insurgent mine, believed to have been responsible for the deaths of 17 British soldiers, has been obtained by The Sunday Telegraph.

The device, which has been used by insurgents throughout Iraq since May last year, fires an armour-piercing "explosively formed projectile" or EFP, also known as a shaped charge, directly into an armoured vehicle, inflicting death or terrible injuries on troops inside.

The weapon can penetrate the armour of British and American tanks and armoured personnel carriers and completely destroy armoured Land Rovers, which are used by the majority of British troops on operations in Iraq.

The device, described as an "off-route mine", was seized by British troops in Iraq earlier this year and brought back to Britain where it underwent detailed examination by scientists at Fort Halstead, the Government's forensic explosive laboratory in Kent.

The Ministry of Defence has attempted to play down the effectiveness of the weapons, suggesting that they are "crude" or "improvised" explosive devices which have killed British troops more out of luck than judgement.

However, this newspaper understands that Government scientists have established that the mines are precision-made weapons which have been turned on a lathe by craftsmen trained in the manufacture of munitions.

But where could the insurgency be getting such weapons?

British military sources believe the devices have been developed in Iran and smuggled across the border into Iraq where they are supplied to Iranian-backed anti-coalition insurgents.

The weapon first emerged on the Iraqi battlefield in May last year and since then it has been used more than 20 times to kill 17 British servicemen. The last two soldiers to be killed by the device were Lieut Tom Mildinhall, 27, and L/Cpl Paul Farrelly, 28, both members of the 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards, who were killed on May 28 in a district north-west of Basra.

The devices, which are impossible to detect, can be easily camouflaged and triggered using infra-red technology, remote control or by a command wire.

Earlier this year, The Sunday Telegraph revealed how a multi-charged roadside bomb, developed by Hizbollah in Lebanon, was also being used against British and American soldiers by Iraqi insurgents.

Essentially, Cenk Uygur's argument appears to be that since he hasn't heard of such things, that they don't exist. I imagine that by that lofty standard, much of the world doesn't exist for him.

But he isn't done yet:

Guess who's supposed be bringing in the EFPs? Why Iran, of course. Really? Can these brilliant, anonymous defense analysts tell us who fire these EFPs and for what purpose?

They gave a lot of generic blame to the Mahdi Army because that is who we are going to attack next in Iraq. But are they saying the Mahdi Army is now engaging in combat against US troops? Because that would be news to everybody. Right now, it is believed that they are fighting - and often times brutally killing - Sunnis. But I haven't read anything about the Mahdi Army attacking coalition forces. Can this explosive new charge be proven in anyway? Have there been any of their fighters captured in the battlefield?

So many charges, so little evidence.

That the Madhi Army has engaged U.S troops is only new to you, Cenk. The rest of the educated world calls it "history."

The eight-day Battle of Najaf in August of 2004 featured 2,000 U.S Marines and 1,800 Iraqi Army soldiers against roughly 2,000 members of Muqtada al Sadr's Madhi Army. 159 militiamen and 261 were captured in this one battle alone.

Perhaps Cenk might be able to understand this information in a format more he might find more approachable. I'm sorry, but they don't have it yet on Playstation.

Najaf, was, of course, just one of many battles coalition forces fought against the Madhi Army between 2004 and October of 2006, and smaller scale, skirmish-level fights against the Shia milita have never ceased.

It's funny how much of the world you can miss when you are determined not to see it.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:20 PM | Comments (5)

Dollard Updates

From time to time I've written about Pat Dollard, the former Hollywood agent turned outspoken Iraqi War documentary filmmaker and IED magnet. He has a new site design up, and it is quite improved over his old site. Check it out.

While you're there, make sure you drink in the Youtube video he found, where a Iraqi cleric thanks America for invading Iraq and daring to try to fix an Arab culture that has been broken for 1,400 years (his words). He compares the existing Arab culture to slavery repeatedly, and says that our attempt to give Iraq a democracy is the best thing that has ever happened in the region.

Don't look for CNN, ABC, CBS, or AP to share this video.

Pat was recently on Greg Gutfeld's new show on Fox News called Red-Eye. An excerpt of the interview was on Hot Air over the weekend, talking about media coverage of the war and the "bravery" of George Clooney.

The full 14 minute, 4 second segment was on Google Video, but doesn't presently appear to be working. Hopefully it will be up and running later today.

Pat's war documentary Young Americans will hopefully soon be released as a series soon, once he landsa distributor. He tells me hes just watched the two-hour pilot episode and knows what edits he would like to make, and should hopefully have it complete soon.

If you want a taste, he has five video clips posted here.

CONTENT WARNING: The Marines in this video drop F-bombs like they were trying out to be John Edwards campaign bloggers, and his choice of music is hardcore punk liberally sprinkled with the same kind of language. As you might also expect, some combat footage is also not for the sqeamish. You might want to save this until you get home, and the kids are off to bed. If you want one words to describe the footage Dollard collected in Iraq, "raw" describes it best.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | Comments (1)

Missing in Action

According to a source in Baghdad, the dozens of checkpoints manned by Madhi Army militamen in the Shia areas are now missing in western Baghdad as of Monday, and the militamen themselves are absent from public view. The western media should be able to confirm this fairly soon.

In the meantime, the U.S. has locked down the Rusafa district in preparation of sweeps in eastern Baghdad. These operations have been confirmed as part of the much-discussed surge:

American commanders described the operation Sunday in the Rusafa district as an early taste of large-scale sweeps expected in eastern Baghdad to take back some measure of control from militias. Troops from the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team were fired on by insurgents with automatic rifles, and they detained 10 Iraqis while searching for a car-bomb manufacturing site in the area, a violent sectarian fault line between a Shiite enclave and the insurgent-ridden Sunni neighborhood of Fadhil.

The operations in eastern Baghdad are to be a centerpiece of the so-called surge of 21,000 troops that many here view as a last-ditch effort to save the country from all-out civil war.

Eastern Baghdad "is a focal point for us right now," said Brigadier General John Campbell, deputy commander of coalition troops in Baghdad. American- led forces say they have conducted 3,400 patrols and detained 140 suspects in the past week.

Not surprisingly, Jon Kerry has attacked the surge, even though it has already commenced and American forces are already in combat.

Shocking, I know.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (2)

February 07, 2007

Hardball?

Jules Crittenden has a post up this morning called Hardball, Anyone?, in which he posits that the Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Baghdad may be an example of the U.S playing hardball by snatching a "diplomat" that is actually an Iranian intelligence agent fomenting sectarian violence.

Plausible? Certainly, and an interesting theory. The Iranians, of course, are alleging exactly that. But quite frankly it doesn't sound like our modus operandi.

We've captured Iranian operatives before--we're currently holding five right now--and our soldiers were in U.S. uniforms when they made their raids on a fixed location.

This diplomat--and I doubt very much he was a diplomat--was snatched from his car in a very crude ambush, where tow cars blocked his path, engaged his guards in a brief firefight, snatched him, and sped away. Four suspects in one car were captured by Iraqi police, only to be apparently set free by Iraqi government officials the next day.

Could this be a simple kidnapping? That government officials allegedly ordered the release of four of the suspects suggests that it was not. This looks like an Iraqi operation, or at least an operation executed by Iraqis.

The question seems to be whether or not this an unsanctioned action by a rogue element of the Iraqi government, a directed clandestine action by the Iraqi government, or if this was an Iraqi operation on behalf of the United States. Quite frankly, we don't know, but the last seems the least plausible. When we want to arrest Iranian "diplomats," we simply do it, out in the open, as we did with the five already in custody. Why risk someone else screwing it up?

I suspect this is an Iraqi operation, one designed to send a message about Iran's meddling in Iraqi affairs. The only question in my mind is whether this operation was cleared from Nori- al-Maliki's office, or whether this action was autonomously conducted by other elements of the Iraqi government.

Either way, I'm sure the message sent to Tehran was received loud and clear. It only remains to be seen if the diplomat ever turns back up, and what the Iranian response may be.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:33 AM | Comments (0)

February 06, 2007

It's Official... Sorta

Live from Baghdad, the surge is officially on... depending on who you are listening to.

"Official" or not, American and Iraqi soldiers began operating yesterday, and are conducting raids tonight. To date, we have elements of the Iraqi Army 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th Divisions operating in the Baghdad battlespace with Interior Ministry commandos and various American units, including a Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne and elements the U.S 2nd Division.

Allah's updating like crazy. Stay tuned...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:27 PM | Comments (0)

February 05, 2007

Surge

It has apparently. begun, and the rash of terrorist attacks over the past week, including the suicide truck bombing Saturday of a Baghdad marketplace frequented by both Sunni and Shia makes it appear, at least on the surface, that the terrorists were either attempting to get their last licks in before the expected crackdown before melting away, or the were planning to stay and fight. Of course, with different groups making different decisions (some reports indicate the Shia militias may go dormant; past experience tends to show that diehard al Qaeda elements prefer to seek their martyrdom), the attacks may have no more "meaning" than they typically do.

CNN reports on what appears to be the start of the much-debated "surge."

U.S. and Iraqi forces on Monday were preparing to launch a major security crackdown in Baghdad to curb sectarian bloodshed as a wave of bombings pushed the country's death toll to more than 1,000 in seven days.

Even as the security plan was being finalized, fresh violence continued to escalate the carnage with fresh explosions across the Iraq capital claiming more lives.

The city was still reeling from a massive suicide truck bomb on Saturday that detonated in a bustling market place, killing nearly 130 people in one of the worst attacks in the city since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.

The United Nations says almost 17,000 people have died from fighting in the last year in Baghdad.

There was no official timeline for the launch of the new security plan, but U.S. Colonel Douglass Heckman, the senior adviser to the 9th Iraqi Army Division, said it was expected to begin shortly after a transition of military control in the city.

"Officially the Baghdad Operational Command takes over tomorrow, so the expectation is that the plan will be implemented soon thereafter, very soon thereafter," he said, according to The Associated Press.

Two Iraqi newspapers have reported the operation, the third attempt since May 2006 to pacify the capital, would begin Monday.

Heckman said thousands of U.S. and Iraqi reinforcements already were in place for the neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweep to clamp off the violence by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia, AP said.

Greyhawk has a round-up at Mudville Gazette that suggests the surge is starting today, and that a Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne is already deployed in Baghdad as part of the first wave of the surge.

Back in the States, our feckless Senators, led by the craven John Warner, (R-Va.), and Carl Levin, (D-Mich.), are now set to attempt to debate their gutless non-binding opposition to the surge. This is especially disgusting when you take into account that these senators already know (or should know) that U.S. and Iraqi units are already engaging.

What moral cowardice it takes to debate a "non-binding resolution" which has no responsibility associated with it. What moral turpitude to attempt to undercut a battle already being joined.

I don't expect much from our Senators, but I do expect them to have enough courage to either issue forth law, or shut up. A non-binding resolution is the mark of a political coward; it means nothing, stands for nothing, and merely serves to provide them "wiggle-room" in either direction depending on the outcome of the battle.

Michael Yon, currently in Iraq spoke about the surge on yesterday's The Glenn and Helen Show. He said it will be like "unlike anything we've seen before."

Watch, and we will see. At this point, with so much of the public against the war, the future of our involvement in Iraq depends on the outcome.


Update: I just confirmation from a source in Baghdad. The "surge" started today, and is underway.

Update: I just called MNSTC-I PAO LTC Kevin Buckingham to get official word on the surge, and "the offical word" is that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will release the official word of when the surge starts.

We do know that Iraqi forces already establishing checkpoints throughout five districts, and we know it was Iraqi soldiers (with U.S. forces in support) that killed Khadhim al-Hamadani, a top al-Sadr official in the Medhi Army, in a raid last night.

Readers should keep in mind that the official, announced start and end dates of military operations are not always the same as the actual start and end dates.

According to al Sabaah, battalions of the Iraqi 3rd, 5th and 7th Divisions, along with Interior Minsitry commando units, are currently being deployed.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:55 AM | Comments (3)

February 02, 2007

The Martyr

Michael Yon offers a powerful account of the last act of a selfless Iraqi civilian in his latest dispatch, The Hands of God.

This is the kind of story you will not likely hear uttered by the New York Times or the Associated Press.

This is the caliber of the people that liberals would abandon to terror.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:39 AM | Comments (1)

February 01, 2007

Time to Purge

If there was ever a good time to consider purging elements of the Iraqi government that many see as being "in bed" with al-Sadr's militia and Iran, this might qualify (via Greg Tinti).

Two senior Iraqi generals are being questioned in connection with last week's attack in Karbala that left five U.S. soldiers dead, Pentagon officials told FOX News Thursday.

Military officials also said the level of sophistication of the attack — where militants posed as U.S. soldiers to pass a number of security checkpoints — suggested possible Iranian involvement.

The assault was carried out by nine to 12 militants wearing new U.S. military fatigues and traveling in black GMC Suburban vehicles — the type used by U.S. government convoys. U.S. officials said the imposters had American weapons and spoke English.

The raid, as explained by Iraqi and American officials, began after nightfall at about 6 p.m. on Jan. 20, while American military officers were meeting with their Iraqi counterparts on the main floor of the Provisional Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala.

The Pentagon said the investigation into the attack is ongoing and several Iraqis have been detained for questioning.

Because high-level generals were possibly involved, the Pentagon said, it raises questions about the loyalty and trustworthiness of Iraqi military officers at the highest levels.

For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibilty that the Karbala attack did involve the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps as some have suggested, and that these two Iraqi generals are in fact in some way complicit in this attack.

If this is indeed the case, then this would seem to be a case of treason by these two generals. A great deal of interest will be paid in seeing how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki deals with this situation, and if he is judged to mishandle it, it could be very detrimental to his government. Many already feel that al-Maliki is far too cozy with the Madhi militia of Muqtada al-Sadr, and are critical of his apparent disinterest in Iran's involvement within Iraq.

Should al-Maliki fail here, his government stands to lose trust already wearing thin.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:43 PM | Comments (12)

January 29, 2007

Bad Day For the Bad Guys

300 terrorists--including Afghans, Saudis and one Sudanese--were killed in a pitched battle near the Shiite holy city of Najaf, after Iraqi forces were tipped to a planned raid on Najaf that sought to kill Shia pilgrims and leading clerics at the Imam Ali Shrine. Among the targeted clerics was Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered of Iraq's Shia clerics.

The terrorists seemed to be composed of both Sunnis and a radical Shia sect. The goal of the attack seems clear: to plunge Iraq into a direct and all-out civil war along sectarian lines, dwarfing the present sectarian conflict and perhaps pre-empting the goals of the surge of American troops that hopes to stabilize Baghdad.

As Captain Ed notes:

The post-battle assessments should be interesting. Intelligence forces must be wondering why insurgents would attempt a straight-up fight against the Iraqis, and whether that indicates overconfidence or desperation.

Jules Crittenden brings up the very interesting point that the goal of the Shia sect involved in the attack, the Army of Heaven or Army of the Sky" depending on the translation, hoped to kill the assembled Shia Grand Ayatollahs to clear the way for the arrival of the Hidden Imam, also known as the Madhi.

It bears noting that this seems to be almost exactly in line with the goals and desires of the Hojjatieh sect of Shia Islam in Iran, the sect of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahcracy of Iran.

While I've seen no accounts of the battle that explicitly or implicitly state and Iranian involvement in either the planning nor the pre-empted execution of the attack to date, I'll be very interested to see if any evidence emerges that indicates Iran may have either had advance warning of the attack, or if they had a role in its planning. Considering Iran's probable involvement in the Karbala attack nine days ago that saw American soldiers kidnapped and killed is a sophisticated attack that may have directly involved the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, I'd say anything is possible at this point.

If it can be proven that Iran was behind this disastrous (for the bad guys) raid, it seems likely that Iran’s plans to expand its role in Iraq is far from benign, and may be setting both of our nations on a path towards a more direct conflict.

I sincerely hope that the Iranian leadership is not intent of forcing our nations into a direct conflict, but they seem increasingly willing to take that risk.

Iran is not nearly as strong militarily, economically, or diplomatically as they would like to appear, and we have two branches of our military—the Air Force and the Navy—which are quite capable of leveling Iran’s infrastructure, their fledging nuclear weapons program and their military (mostly composed of conscripts) before they penetrate the Iraq border, should it come to a direct confrontation between our nations.

I don’t think anyone in this country wants to fight in Iran and Iraq simultaneously, but as long as we don’t desire to physically invade Iran and hold ground (and we have no reason to want to do so), we can wreck far more havoc in 2007 with our assembled regional air power than we ever brought to bear in the 1990-91 Gulf War.

Then again, you cannot ascribe rational motives to a group so radicalized that it was once outlawed by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983. The Hojjatieh do not think in mortal terms and are obsessed with bringing about their sect’s "End of Days" to usher forth the Hidden Imam. What we would see as an irrational escalation that could only bring about their defeat on the battlefield, may be exactly what they hope would trigger their hoped-for apocalypse.

Strange days, indeed.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:43 AM | Comments (0)

January 27, 2007

Careful what you wish for

Since C.Y. isn't around and I found my spare keys to this joint I figured I'd try them out, at least 'til they get repossessed.

This can't be good, can't be good at all.

It really looks like the Democrats and Ma Pelosi are going to be able to keep that promise of a "new direction" they made to the American people. I give it six weeks tops before we start that "phased redeployment" they've been after for so long.

Too bad they weren't specific enough.

If I were a betting man I'd say we'll start dropping bombs in the next couple of months, if Israel doesn't beat us to it.

update: Of course we'd learn about Iran building Centrifuges as John Kerry's making nice with the Iranian President and blaming Americans for the world's problems. Mr. Kerry for one welcomes our new Muslim overlords.

Posted by phin at 04:40 PM | Comments (4)

January 26, 2007

Nothing to See Here: Move Along

It's only the attempted trafficking of weapons-grade uranium:

A top official at a Russian state scientific institute confirmed Friday that Georgia had sent Russia a sample of uranium allegedly seized in a sting operation and that it was weapons-grade, Russian news agencies reported.

However, Igor Shkabura, deputy director of the Bochvar Inorganic Materials Institute, said the size of the sample provided by Georgia was too small to determine its origin, the RIA-Novosti and ITAR-Tass news agencies said.

At least this buy last year was a sting; other developments make me wonder of other attempts to sell weapons-grade uranium were successful:

The standoff between Iran and the West over its alleged clandestine nuclear programme looks set to increase with a report emerging on Wednesday in a British newspaper asserting that Tehran has been acquiring North Korean assistance in preparation for its first underground nuclear test, which European officials believe could take place as early as the end of the year.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Tehran and Pyongyang have expanded their traditional military ties to the nuclear level, with the reclusive Stalinist state sharing with Iranian nuclear scientists all data and information pertaining to the first-ever North Korean underground nuclear test conducted last October.

The news is set to exacerbate tensions between Tehran and western capitals. However, it appears that Iran was aware that the development would soon be made public. Just two days earlier, it barred 38 nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from operating on its territory, in a move that has already been slammed by France as evidence of Iranian discrimination against westerners from the United Nations nuclear watchdog’s inspection team.

This is of course merely speculation (that's what you guys pay me the big blogging bucks for, isn't it?), but it would appear to make quite a bit of sense.

If Western intelligence agencies are correct then Iran's own nuclear weapons program should not have yet been able to yet develop weapons-grade uranium from the cascade of centrifuges they currently have in their possession, why is Iran seeking help to prepare for a nuclear weapons test now, unless they either have, or anticipate having, a warhead ready to test in the near future?

If Iran was angling for foreign weapons-grade uranium, it might also be worthwhile to imply a far more nefarious purpose... plausible deniability. Nuclear weapons have signatures that can be traced back of their country of origin. Should a nuclear weapon be smuggled overland into the target area, a la the "neo-con" episode of 24 and then detonated, then it would be more difficult to conclusively prove who was behind the blast.

Were Tel Aviv or San Diego to suddenly disappear in a blinding flash and the uranium signature trace back to Georgia instead of Iran, then it is much less likely that the United States would have the immediate justification for a nuclear counterstrike.

This of course, is all idle speculation. Right?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

WaPo Appalled at Concept of Killing the Enemy

You've just got to love how Allahpundit nailed the right level of near-hysteria in his headline about this Washington Post article: WaPo: U.S. declares war on Iran in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine.

The actual lede seems to me as a "about damn time" directive but WaPo somehow figures this is front page news:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.

I guess this is an example of the difference between those of us who desire to actually succeed in Iraq, and those of us who don't.

Perhaps it is just my perception, but it seems to me that Dafna Linzer is gob-smacked at this idea that we would be targeting those training terrorists, and perhaps even filled with appropriate levels of self-righteous heartache, but my response is simply this: what took so freaking long?

Iranian foreign policy is in direct conflict with that of the United States across the Middle East, and they have provided military support, training, and presumably intelligence assets in both Iraq and Lebanon. They seek not to just destroy the tenuous democratic governments in these two nations and (no doubt) hopefully install puppet regimes of their own beholden to Tehran, but hope to destroy both the United States and Israel. Of course, we can't been sure of that last claim... Ahmadinejad has only stated it publicly about a dozen times, so we might be missing some nuance there.

I look upon this as a favorable development, but Allah has his full weltschmerz on:

The aim, obviously, is to beat back Iran influence across the region until they’re back to this point and are ready to make a deal on nukes. Like the surge, it’s a good idea that’s years too late. Unlike the surge, which will be led by Petraeus, it’s being run by Bush’s same old crew. I have no faith in them at this point to anticipate contingencies or react effectively when they occur, so color me reluctantly, cautiously pessimistic.

He makes a very valid point; we've been very reactive in Iraq instead of pro-active, which to my mind, means we've still got far too much of the war-fighting decision-making coming out of the White House instead of in the theater of operations, where these decisions should be made.

I have some hopes that nomination of Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to command American forces in Iraq will change how we fight there. Petraeus has been in Iraq twice, and has learned from the school of hard knocks what doesn't work, and also, hopefully, what might, as he helped draft the Army's new counterinsurgency manual.

In the past, the United States Army has excelled at countering insurgencies and perhaps with the right leadership, it can do so again, but it remains to be seen if a lame-duck Administration and a mewling Congress will actually allow the military the time, resources, and rules of engagement necessary to win.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 24, 2007

Partial Scores

According to a centcom.mil press release, 100 members of "The Council" in Diyala were killed and 50 more were detained in operations of the past few weeks. They were all terrorists.

U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 100 terrorists, detained 50, and dismantled a large terrorist group in January during Operation Turki Bowl, the senior U.S. Army officer in Iraq’s Diyala province said yesterday.

The operation, conducted from Jan. 4 to 13, occurred south of Balad Ruz in the Turki Village, Tuwilla and 30 Tamuz areas of the province. During the operation, U.S. Army and Iraqi soldiers isolated and defeated a terrorist group known as “The Council,” Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, told reporters via satellite connection from a news conference in Iraq.

“The group, made up of former Baath Regime members, al Qaeda and Sunni extremists, refused to participate in any political dialogue and preferred attacking innocent civilians in the Diyala province,” Sutherland said.

Did U.S. media outlets cover this victory where 100 terrorists were killed and 50 were captured? No. They responded with hardly a whisper.

They certainly found plenty of time to discuss it when 100 civilians were killed, however.

100 dead civilians is front page news around the globe, especially here in the United States, but 100 dead terrorists? It barely garners a mention.

It seems it has become a fairly standard practice to report half the war in the American media, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that Americans are against a war where all that ever seems to occur the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

To use a metaphor of a basketball game (and I'm shamelessly stealing this from a local radio host by the name of Bill Lumaye), it is as if the media consistently reports that the local college team scored 70 points in Wednesday night's game after scoring 68 the Saturday before and 63 the Wednesday before that; you're only getting part of the story, and certainly not enough to know who won.

Without knowing how the other team did, you don't know the whole story, and as the on-going saga of the Associated Press/Jamil Hussein scandal reminds us, it doesn't help when even that partial score is grossly exaggerated.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:03 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

January 19, 2007

Hot Air: Tomba Kids

Bryan could have--and I'll argue he should have--named this post something else.

How about Why We Fight.

This is what I want you to think of when you hear Democrats in the House and Senate (along with the Republicans defectors) talking about defunding the troops and argue against the very surge of troops so many of them supported until Bush agreed with them.

Looking Out
Photo courtesy of Michael Yon.

Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer and so many others argue that they have the views on the Iraq War that they do "because of the children." Which children? These that they would abandon?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:46 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 17, 2007

Fallen Angels

Just... read.

And keep in mind that this is the fate Dean, Pelosi, Durbin, Hagel, etc would abandon even more Iraqi families to face.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 12, 2007

Leftists Attack American Interests, Hit Crap

Don.t shoot the messenger, I'm just repeating what Sky News said:

A leftist group has reportedly claimed responsibility for a rocket attack on the US embassy in Athens.

The Greek government said it had received two calls claiming the guerrilla group Revolutionary Struggle was behind the attack.

Public Order minister Vyron Polydoras said it was "very likely" a domestic group was behind the blast.

The rocket slammed into the embassy toilet in the early morning strike, causing slight damage but no injuries.

Reuters more clearly defines the weapon as an RPG-18, a kind of rocket-propelled grenade.

It's too bad for Huff 'n Puffer Mark Seery; no American soldiers died.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:27 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 10, 2007

The "New Way Forward"

From yonder White House.

Have at it. I'm going to be a bad political blogger and not read this until after Bush's speech, but I'm guessing the new way farward is neither through Damascus nor Tehran, so I'm sure I'll be disappointed anyway.

Update: Bush's speech, as prepared for delivery (via Drudge):

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units – and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army – and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors – and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region – to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States – and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad – or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 09, 2007

The Beginning of Surge Combat?

It looks like both coalition forces and the insurgents might be changing tactics in Baghdad, as a signifigant combat operation in Baghdad enters a fourth day:

Hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi troops battled with insurgents in a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency in central Baghdad Tuesday.

The firefight began before dawn and followed two days of violence in the neighborhood that left as many as 50 insurgents dead.

The U.S. and Iraqi troops came under attack by snipers, mortar rounds, and small arms fire.

By midday Tuesday (4 a.m. ET), the U.S. military sent in fixed-wing aircraft and Apache attack helicopters to support the ground forces.

U.S. military sources said the insurgent group included elements from the Saddam Hussein regime, foreign fighters, and members of al Qaeda in Iraq.

They said the group was waging a sophisticated, coordinated battle, and was fighting against 400 U.S. troops and 500 Iraqi soldiers.

Combat started Saturday when Iraqi troops came under fire when trying to recover bodies dumped near a cemetery.

At this stage of the war it is rare for Sunni insurgents to engage in a multi-day battle against coalition forces, for obvious reasons: they have lost every single major engagement they have ever engaged in since the 2003 invasion, usually suffering heavy losses. They simply lack the training, support, weaponry or numbers to prevail in such conflicts, and so it is of note that they seem to have chosen to make a stand, of sorts, in this Baghdad neighborhood at this time. Why? What are they protecting, and what are they trying to prove? Why have they not slipped away under the guise of civilians as they so often do?

There is some sort of prize involved here, be it material, personnel, or philosophical. I'll be watching this story with great interest, and will provide updates as I can. This particular battle bears watching as a portent of what "surge" operations in Baghdad may look like in months to come.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:51 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 03, 2007

An Offensive or Defensive Surge?

John Keegan has an article today in the U.K. Telegraph titled, 50,000 more US troops can save Iraq. His article refers to the expected surge of US troops into Iraq, presumably to engage and suppress Sunni and Shia terror groups.

All sorts of pundits have all sorts of opinions on whether or not a surge would be effective. In very general terms, those pundits that are left of center, and a few on the right, hold the view that sending in more soldiers is simply giving the various terror groups more American soldiers to shoot at, and that adding more troops will not appreciably change the military of political situation on the ground in Iraq.

These concerns are not without some merit. If we send more soldiers over to merely increase the number of patrols and IED hunts (like the one Bill Aradalino just completed) without any sort of a change to our offensive strategic and/or tactical goals, then yes, all we are effectively doing is providing more targets with very little chance of seeing much in the way of a long-term change.

That said, in his article Keegan speaks of the kind of offensive-minded surge that could make a profound difference on the shape of the conflict, and potentially shape Iraqi politics as well:

The object of the surge deployment should be to overwhelm the insurgents with a sudden concentration, both of numbers, armoured vehicles and firepower with the intention to inflict severe losses and heavy shock. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City should prove vulnerable to such tactics, which would of course be supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aviation.

Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.

The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops. The advantage of committing recently arrived troops to such operations is that they will come to operations fresh and enthusiastic. Though there is the disadvantage that they may not be familiar with local conditions or topography, this need not be a disqualification since the purpose of a surge strike would be to create a shock effect, not to alter local conditions by informal action.

The British contingent recently demonstrated that such overwhelming tactics have their effect. After their surprise move into Basra with massed columns of fighting vehicles and Challenger tanks, they succeeded in dominating the chosen area and evoking respect from the local militias.

If additional forces are specifically sent in with the goal of crushing the Sadrist Mahdi Army, affiliated criminal gangs and Shia death squads operating out of Baghdad's Sadr City and Najaf, along with elements of the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists operating out of Ramadi and other areas, then this will be a worthwhile operation to surge in these additional troops.

As I've noted previously, Sadr City may be a slum that is home to two-million people, but it is a compact slum, which can be cordoned off relatively easily and systematically demilitarized by whatever means are deemed necessary. Some will be quick to attempt to compare it to Fallujah, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is little indication that the Mahdi Army is as dedicated or as well-trained as were the terrorists of al Qaeda, despite any expected interference of Iranian Special Forces, and I doubt there will be a full-on military assault as a result. Odds are that most Sadrists will surrender or run, not fight, leaving their weapons caches behind.

Once Sadr City is cleared, US forces can (and probably should) impose checkpoints to keep the surviving Shiite death squad members from picking hteri habits back up after the sweep, even as they consider whether or not they need to also pay a visit to Najaf, an Iraqi city where U.S. Marines previously battled the Mahdi Army, and where al-Sadr's family traditionally draws power. One thing is almost certain: Muqtada al-Sadr should not be allowed to survive. Period.

Once the Madhi Army is fractured and Sadr City's remaining death squads under lockdown, the US military's attention should turn to the Sunni insurgency in Ramadi, where local forces and the U.S. military is slowly taking back the city from Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda on a block-by block basis. While it has gone mostly underreported in the media, this city is where the battle against the Sunni insurgency seems to be at it's most concentrated, even as al Qaeda forces and influence seem to be a on a slow constant ebb.

If the Shiite militias in Baghdad and southern Iraq can be curbed, and the Sunni terrorists in al Anbar are forced into retreat, then the surge will have been worthwhile. If we fight an offensive campaign with the 30,000-50,000 troops projected to be sent to Iraq, then we have a chance to win. If we don’t use our soldiers in an offensive manner, and use them to merely augment our currently forces on their current, mostly defensive missions, then I fear this surge will have been wasted.

While I'm sure he doesn't even know I exist, my counsel to the President would be this: Send them in for combat, or don’t send them in at all.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 30, 2006

End of a Dictator

Bumped to the top
12/30/06 00:55 EST: I have it on good authority that Saddam was executed at 4:22 AM... and every media source on the planet is wrong about the 6:00 AM execution.

Previously:

1:54 EST: Just got a reconfirmation from my source minutes ago. Saddam Hussein has about two hours to live, with a midnight execution still scheduled.

2:20: EST: Corroboration.

3:04 EST: Source: "they're gearing up, but logistics could put it in the wee hours after midnight. Absolutely no later than dawn, which is close to midnight our time. The Iraqis are not always as punctual as the U.S. military."

3:08 EST: Source: "It's still entirely possible he'll be dead within the hour. The curtain of secrecy draws tighter as the hour draws nearer. "

Note: this will be my final update until the deed is done-- CY.

According to an anonymous source, the former President of Iraq will be executed by hanging at 12:00 AM midnight Baghdad-time on Saturday/4:00 PM EST Friday afternoon at an undisclosed location.

If my source is correct, Saddam Hussein is facing his final sunrise.

Update:


satan_saddam
Sooner, Rather than Later?

Update: Fox News confirms that Hussein's death sentence has been signed, and that Saddam will be executed by Saturday.

Update: What Saddam's impending death means to Jules Crittenden.

Update: Fox News confirms that Hussein's death sentence has been signed, and that Saddam will be executed by Saturday.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:55 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

December 29, 2006

Worlds Apart

It isn't likely that you needed a litmus test to gauge the widely divergent viewpoints on the Iraq War, but on the off chance that you did, Senator Joe Lieberman provided it in spades in an op-ed published in today's Washington Post calling for more American troops to be sent to Iraq.

Reaction on both sides is as you might expect it, both from conservative bloggers, and from liberals.

Blogging from the right with a soldier-son in Iraq, Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard:

My son and I were talking the other day about troop levels. Frankly, there should have been more on the ground sooner. That is looking back with 20/20 hindsight, of course. It is vital right now not to simply abandon the Middle East to Iran's ambitions. Yet that is what some want to do.

From Dan Collins at the libertarian-rightish Protein Wisdom:

In his opinion piece in the WaPo today, Independent Senator from Connecticut Joe Lieberman says the *gasp!* V-Word! He’s so over the line he's, he's . . . why, he's trans-neoconic! If you've no better source of entertainment today, you can watch the sinistrosphere go ballistic over the temerity of the man...

...If he runs for president, I think he's got my vote.

From Paul Silver at the moderate—what else?—Moderate Voice:

I agree with Senator Lieberman's commentary today in the Washington Post...

...Yes this war has been mismanaged, it is inconvenient, and it is expensive. And yes we may lose it still. But I can't support abandoning so many millions of people that WE put in harms way by surrendering them to ethnic cleansing. I feel shame when the most powerful society in history abandoned so many freedom loving southeast Asians after the Vietnam War, when we ignore those in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia and other killing fields.

I would be willing to pay higher taxes and volunteer once a week in a military base to allow trained soldiers to go over there, because I believe this is necessary and worth the sacrifice.

From Steve Clemons at the reliably left-wing Huffington Post:

Senator Lieberman just spent 10 days in the Middle East and still does not get it. He's penned an op-ed calling for more deployed American troops in Iraq.

It's a remarkable essay for just how anti-empirical it is and how he can so easily waft platitudes about America's engagement in the region after actually seeing the miserable results of more than three and half years of military occupation of Iraq by us...

...Many critics of this war -- including this blogger -- always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran's "balancer" would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran's pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman's confession that he and others were warned of this and didn't see it coming?

And what really irritates is his depiction of the extremists, who he inappropriately ties to Iran. The extremists in many cases are angry Sunnis who want their place back in society, who despise Iran and now the Shiites as well as us.

Lieberman should have seen in Iraq that America is now supporting the guy Iran wants -- al-Maliki. Lieberman's entire depiction of the good and the bad in Iraq are ridiculous and remind one of Soviet era depictions of the enemy in Afghanistan...

...Senator Lieberman, let their be no doubt that the outcome you fear was totally predictable -- and was triggered by you and the other enablers of this war. Where is your humility and your own ownership of the consequences of what you have unleashed? Where is your realistic answer to what must be done to establish a NEW equilibrium of interests in the region?

Glenn Greenwald sees this as a declaration of war on Iran:

In his Washington Post Op-Ed today, the Great Warrior Joe Lieberman predictably endorsed sending more troops to Iraq, in the process dutifully spouting (as always) every Bush/neoconservative talking point. But Lieberman had a much larger fish to fry with this Op-Ed, as he all but declared war on Iran, identifying them as the equivalent of Al Qaeda, as the Real Enemy we are fighting...

...One might question why someone who is one of the most vocal advocates of the Iraq Disaster would seek to expand the war to include Iran, a country much larger and more formidable on every level than Iraq. After all, things aren't going that well in Iraq, and it might seem to a simplistic and Chamberlain-like appeasing coward that the absolutely most insane idea ever is to try to expand "our war" to include Iran. So what would motivate Lieberman to do this?

He then goes on to make the snide, roundabout case—and no, I'm not be facetious—that Liebermann is doing this because the Israelis told him too:

Initially, it must be emphasized that whatever his reason is, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the sentiments expressed by Israel's newest cabinet minister, Avigdor Lieberman (whose duties include strategic affairs and Iran) when he visited the U.S. earlier this month and gave an interview to The New York Times:
"Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem," which he called "the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War." [Minister] Lieberman insisted that negotiations with Iran were worthless: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea."
Joe Lieberman's desire for the U.S. to view itself as being at war with Iran also has nothing whatsoever to do with this:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president...

Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.

"We hear echoes of those very voices that started to spread across the world in the 1930s," Olmert said in his speech at the Yad Vashem memorial.


And yes, he's serious as Glenn Ryan Wilson Ellers Ellison Ellensburg Greenwald can be.

And for a final left-wing viewpoint, Matthew Yglesias:

And what about al-Qaeda? Lieberman appears to be arguing later in the article that Iran and al-Qaeda are collaborating in Iraq since otherwise it's hard to make sense of the claim that "If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism." Needless to say, he's backing the Bush/McCain escalation plan.

One problem here is that to the extent you see the dark hand of Iran behind all events in Iraq, the situation should logically be viewed as more rather than less hopeless. The reason, of course, is that Iran can escalate every bit as much as we can. Whoever's equipping, say, the Mahdi Army clearly isn't equipping them very well -- Hezbollah is much better-armed. Suppose we escalate and the Iranians counter-escalate by giving our foes wire-guided anti-tank missiles, katyusha rockets, Iglas and so forth -- then you're talking about a really bad scene. Obviously, though, that's logic and hawks aren't into logic.

And though I am a hawk—and therefore by definition "not into logic" according to Yglesias—I'll do my best to muddle through these divergent viewpoints and attempt to get to whatever apparent meat remains upon this proverbial bone.

From the center-right, the perspective seems to be that we did not go into Iraq with enough forces initially. We went in with enough military force to destroy Saddam Hussein’s military dictatorship, but not enough military and non-military forces to occupy the country and create stability in which a fledgling democracy could be established. I think few will argue with this perspective, as current events indicate that is precisely what appears to have occurred, as we currently have an Iraqi dictatorship that was quickly toppled in just weeks in 2003, only to fall into a worsening chaos afterward.

From this perspective, many conservatives—but certainly not all, by any means—hope that a influx of American troops can be used in some way to stop the near-constant escalation of sectarian violence in several key Iraqi provinces, and also dismantle various elements of the Sunni insurgency, terrorist groups, the Shia militias, and various criminal gangs. I, for one, agree with something Senator Liebermann said in his op-ed, that, "More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite." If it is possible to win in Iraq—and no honest person can claim to have God's knowledge and unequivocally say this war can’t be won, or is already lost—then providing stability is indeed a prerequisite, and sending in more soldiers is the only option to help achieve that goal.

The "reality-based community" maintains that it has a crystal ball and that the war is already lost. This, of course is a ludicrous position, speaking of the future as if it is known, but a popular and perhaps prevailing one on the left nonetheless. The fact is, though they are loathe to admit it, that the American left wants to lose the War in Iraq. If the situation is turned around in Iraq, stability is restored and Iraq becomes some sort of non-belligerent representative and economically viable Middle Eastern democracy, then the far Left's rhetoric of the past six years will have been proven false. To maintain the viability of their ideology, the Bush Doctrine, and therefore the U.S. military forces and Iraqi government, must fail. It is a sad position that the Left has backed themselves into, but they are campaigning against victory in Iraq, putting their own psychological and philosophical needs above the lives of 26 million Iraqis.

This most certainly is the case, as that is the only way that Greenwald go to such extremes as to “blame the Jews” in almost Sheehanesque shrillness, while purposefully ignoring the fact that Iran has escalated the disagreements between our two nations to the level of conflict, and on multiple occasions.

In Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, he states (via NRO):

Pages 414-415: "Some evidence indicated that the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was training insurgents to build and use the shaped IED's, at the urging of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That kind of action was arguably an act of war by Iran against the United States. If we start putting out everything we know about these things, Zelikow felt, the administration might well start a fire it couldn't put out..."

Page 449: "The components and the training for (the IEDs) had more and more clearly been traced to Iran, one of the most troubling turns in the war."

Page 474ß: "The radical Revolutionary Guards Corps had asked Hizbollah, the terrorist organization, to conduct some of the training of Iraqis to use the EFPs, according to U.S. Intelligence. If all this were put out publicly, it might start a fire that no one could put out...Second, if it were true, it meant that Iranians were killing American soldiers — an act of war..."

From the same column, former FBI director Louis Freeh:

It's not the first time we have had information about Iran's murder of Americans. Louis Freeh tells us that the same thing happened following the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. On page 18 of Freeh's My FBI he reports that Saudi Ambassador Bandar told Freeh "we have the goods," pointing "ineluctably towad Iran." The culprits were the same as in Iraq: Hezbollah, under direction from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. And then there was a confession from outgoing Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani to Crown Prince Abdullah (at the time, effectively the Saudi king): page 19: "the Khobar attack had been planned and carried out with the knowledge of the Iranian supreme ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei."

As Freeh puts it, "this had been an act of war against the United States of America."

According to ABC News, Iranian-made explosives of recent manufacture have been captured at the Iran-Iraq border. Iranian fighters have recently been captured northeast of Baghdad after a skirmish with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers.

Greenwald is welcome to his own opinion, but he seems intent on creating his own reality as well, where Iran is not acting against us. Clemons takes the exact same approach, stating, Liebermann "inappropriately ties" Iran to some of the violence in Iraq. This takes a strong adherence to ideology over facts, and yet, this seems to be precisely their shared position. It is just one example of many they ignore or bend to bring "reality" to their "reality-based" community.

I offer only this.

I do not claim to have a crystal ball. I do not pretend to know where the war will lead. I do not pretend to know the outcome. What I do know, however, is that we further broke an already failing nation-state, and did much to create the situation in which the citizens of Iraq find themselves in. When someone creates a problem as we have done with the botched occupation we have witnessed so far, we have an obligation, a responsibility, to do everything within reason to help rectify that mistake.

If sending additional forces to Iraq in a so-called "surge" to attempt to break the militias, insurgents, terrorists and thugs is what the situation calls for, then we owe it—yes we owe it—to the overwhelming majority of the 26 million Iraqi people that simply want to live peaceful lives.

To do otherwise is to dishonor our nation, and the lives of those who fought and who are fighting in Iraq.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 22, 2006

Men In Glassy Houses...

...Shouldn't throw stones:

[Ahmadinejad] toured cities in western Iran, telling the crowds that Iran will not be intimidated by Western demands to dismantle its nuclear program, and scolding Bush.

"Oh, the respectful gentleman, get out of the glassy palace and know that you are the most hated person in the eyes of the world's nations and you can't harm the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said, according to the official Iranian Republic News Agency.

Glassy. Iranian nation. Ahmadinejad.

Barring a major change in Iranian politics and rhetoric, I think we'll see all three of those in a sentence again in the near future.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 21, 2006

Werewolves of London

Via the Blotter:

British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, "It will be a miracle if there isn't a terror attack over the holidays in London," a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.

British police have been quietly carrying out a series of key arrests as they continue to track at least six active "plots" tied to what they call "al Qaeda of England."

Officials said they could not cite any specific date or target but said al Qaeda had planned previous operations during the Christmas holidays that had been disrupted.

"It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be," an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.

Authorities say they are seeking at least 18 suspected suicide bombers.

Well, isn't that just peachy.

Terrorism isn't rocket science, folks, and al Qaeda has a track record of loving the classics. If al Qaeda is plotting to hit London over the holidays with suicide bombers, figure on trains, planes, and TATP.

TATP, shorthand from triacetone triperoxide, is a powerful and unstable "homebrew" explosive used in the successful subway and bus bombings in London on July 7, 2005, and four failed bombings exactly two weeks later where the TATP used, thought to come from the same batch of explosives, failed to detonate.

I question the timing, and I mean that quite seriously. If these rumored terrorists are indeed plotting a Christmastime attack, it would seem that at least part of the goal would be to drive a deeper wedge between British Muslim "other" and the overwhelming majority of a too-politically correct and predominately Anglo-Christian nation.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 20, 2006

In Spite of Ourselves

So the cheesesteak-eating surrender monkey declares that "Militarily we have lost" in Vietnam Iraq. A bold declaration, considering we've never lost more than a skirmish. For anyone familiar with Murtha, these pronouncements are the typical, defeatist, and dishonest rhetoric we've come to expect from him. He has no desire to win any conflict against terrorism, and has staked his political future on a U.S defeat. Ideologically, he surrendered long ago.

That said, Col. Abscam does illustrate a point; we do tend to be quite myopic, and focus on military success as the be-all, end-all measurement of success or failure in Iraq. In particular, our media and leaders seem focused lately almost exclusively on the rise and fall sectarian violence in Baghdad. While Baghdad, as Iraq's largest city and capital is undoubtedly the single most recognizable city in Iraq, does it necessarily follow that images of conflict in Baghdad accurately reflect the state of the nation?

The simple fact is that there are other factors affecting the success or failure of the Iraqi State, and many of these events are happening outside of the Iraqi capital.

One of those "other factors" is the state of the overall Iraqi economy, which as the media will not readily tell you, is booming:

In my December 10th entry, I observed that the Iraqi economy is doing quite well. I wrote, "This economic news also shows is that Iraqi nation may be slowly evolving into three federal sections since most of the economic progress is happening outside the Baghdad." Newsweek is now reporting what others such as Strategypage.com have been showing for the past couple of years, the Iraqi's economy is booming. And just as I wrote, much of this is occurring is outside Baghdad. Newsweek reports, "With security improving in one key spot—the southern oilfields—that figure could go up." But this is not all. Newsweek added, "Even so, there's a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq. Partly it's the trickle-down effect. However it's spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets." What Newsweek is describing supply side economy and guess what, it works in the United States, and it works in Iraq!

The Futurist was even more bold, building upon work done by the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index and a summary of their report, making the case that Coalition forces and the Iraqi government will defeat the insurgency in 2008 in two posts:

We Will Decisively Win in Iraq...in 2008 - Part I
  • We Will Decisively Win in Iraq...in 2008 - Part II
  • All three of these blog posts hit upon the fact that the burgeoning economic successes felt by Iraqis will push them to desire more stability. Is this a logical thought process?

    I'd argue that these theories make sense in a westernized mind. If I have little or nothing, I'll be willing to fight to get something, if just to provide the basics for my family. If I'm doing well, however, and see the potential of doing even better (Iraq has the fastest growing economy in the Middle East), then I'm going to want to be able to enjoy that prosperity. That thought process works for me, but what we don't yet know is if that thought process applies to Iraqis, probably because we simply don't understand the Iraqis more than we understand any other Middle Eastern culture.

    Hopefully, that gap in cultural understanding will eventually begin to close and the War on Terror will transition away from physical to information battlefields if our leaders are smart enough to follow the advice in this lengthy but informative George Packer article. Eric Martin builds on the Packer article with points certainly worth considering, though I'm not certain if either man is 100% correct.

    Taken all together, and combined with reading the extended works of embedded journalists Yon, Fumento, Totten, Roggio, and others, and we're forced towards a disturbing series of conclusions.

    First, the Iraq War was a decisive military victory in 2003, but since that time, American civilian and military leadership has utterly failed to understand the nature of the insurgent and terrorist conflicts, or how to address it on a strategic level.

    The Iraq War and larger War on Terror are information wars that our leaders have expressed little interest in, or aptitude for. We (and I include myself here) have for far too long fundamentally considered the War on Terror to be a military endeavor, and certainly there is an important military role to be played in defeating Islamic extremists. The truism remains that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

    The problem remains, that for far too long we've simply relied upon killing people once they've metastasized into terrorists; if we follow the advice of those mentioned in Packer's article and others to learn the culture and social networks of the societies that generate our enemies, we can possibly take steps to prevent them from becoming militants by defeating jihadist organizations ideologically. We don't necessarily have to make them like us as so many dhimmis in the United States and especially Europe seem inclined, we simply need to make the effort to understand what triggers those who dislike us to make the jump to acting against us, and eliminate that trigger mechanism.

    Despite the lamentations of the defeat-minded media, Democratic politicians and a liberal pundit class under the delusion that a U.S. defeat in Iraq is (a.) inevitable, and (b.) something they can turn to their political advantage; we seem to have a very strong chance of winning in Iraq if we can change our perceptions of how best to fight both this war, and the larger War on Terror.

    Despite the increasingly apparent strategic incompetence displayed thus far by our civilian and senior military leadership, our soldiers and marines in the field have performed brilliantly on the tactical level, enabling us to achieve unqualified tactical victories in any direct conflict with terrorist or insurgent forces in Iraq. As MTTs (Military Transition Teams) work with Iraqi Army units impart discipline, professionalism and tactics, the Iraqis are increasing responsible for finding, engaging and killing "Ali Babba"—their term for insurgents—on their own. As a result, we've been able to maintain a stalemate in Iraq, even as we've thus far refused to act against the Syrian and Iranian governments supplying the various insurgency, terrorist, criminal and sectarian forces focused on Balkanizing the country.

    Without a doubt, we can win in Iraq. The problem is that we don't seem to be directing our military where they would be the most effective, nor are we doing the other necessary things discussed in Parker's article to personalize and localize success through non-military means.

    There are still some major combat operations yet to be waged—al-Sadr's Madhi Army being an almost certain target, and belligerents Iran and Syria are on the horizon and angling towards a direct conflict —but as our MTTs become more skilled at imparting knowledge, the need for U.S. soldiers in direct combat roles should decline, even if the overall number of troops remains close to current levels.

    We do do the right things in fits and starts. Today, we handed over Najaf to the Iraqis. In Ramadi, where despite the comparative absence of media attention when compared to Baghdad, the real war against the worst elements of the Sunni insurgency is being fought and won, block by block, over time.

    Unfortunately, as time goes on, it seems that our leaders and institutions are unwilling to change, and our population too fickle, to commit to the adaptation of the kind of paradigm shift needed to fight an information-based war that as a media nation, we are quite well-suited to win. As we did in World War II, we seem committed to winning though our overwhelming industrial might and inertia. That is an important element of an eventual victuroy,but we are not in a shooting World War. We could potentially accomplish far more with subtle and not so subtle cultural methods than we could with riflemen and tanks.

    Draft Hollywood. Have David Zucker and his equivalents releasing Arab-language satire mocking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Muqtada al-Sadr, and Osama bin Laden. Have conspiracy theory-minded director Oliver Stone deliver a JFK focusing on the Machiavellian schemes of Hassan Nasrallah and Bashar Assad, release it in Lebanon, and see how popular Hezbollah remains.

    Lend Hollywood behind-the-scenes talents to Middle Eastern casts in pro-Arab democracy, anti-insurgency, anti-terrorist, and anti-Sharia films and television shows. We are well equipped to succeed in a propaganda war in venues large and small, and yet we do not fight this battle, acting if propaganda is a dishonorable way to wage a conflict between cultures, even as the enemy uses those same methods to combat us through our own complacent and perhaps willing media.

    At this point, if we win in Iraq, it will be despite our Administration, which does not seem to understand key elements of the non-military conflict. It will be despite a Democratic Party that still does not seem to be able to see beyond the short-term political scraps it can lap up placating a disgruntled populace. If we win, it will be despite a media that either does not know, or does not care, how they are being used to fight against the very democracies that allow them to thrive.

    No, if we win in Iraq, the victory will go to the Iraqi people, and the ability of the American soldier, sailor, airman and marines to outlast the incompetence of old generals fighting past wars and politicians more concerned about fighting each other for fickle public opinion.

    We can win in Iraq, and indeed we may yet, but it will come in spite of our leadership, not because of it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    December 15, 2006

    Battle for Sadr City? No Hue.

    Several days ago, Allahpundit caught a potentially important L.A. Times article which purports to outline "the way forward" in Iraq (my bold):

    As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

    Allah keyed in on the same phrase I did in the lede, and notes:

    They want as many as 40,000 more troops and, to make sure no one’s going to call off the dogs once they’re unleashed, a shuffle within the Iraqi government, which is almost certainly what Bush’s meeting with Iraq’s Sunni vice president was about yesterday. Some experts are knocking the plan on grounds that you can’t kill your way to victory here. You can’t not kill your way to victory either, though — we tried that by turning al-Sadr onto politics and look where it got us. Gen. Chiarelli wants to split the difference by introducing an aggressive jobs program alongside the military maneuvers to give would-be jihadists an alternative to fighting.

    Greg Tini hits similar point at the new TomDelay.com blog, and Charles Krauthammer concludes in a column at Townhall.com:

    …the president has one last chance to come forward with a new strategy.

    He must do two things. First, as I've been agitating, establish a new governing coalition in Baghdad that excludes Moqtada al-Sadr, a cancer that undermines the Maliki government's ability to work with us. It is encouraging that the president has already begun such a maneuver by meeting with rival Shiite and Sunni parliamentary leaders. If we help produce a cross-sectarian government that would be an ally rather than a paralyzed semi-adversary of coalition forces, we should then undertake part two: "double down" our military effort. This means a surge in American troops with a specific mission: to secure Baghdad and (together with the support of the Baghdad government -- a sine qua non) suppress Sadr's Mahdi Army.

    It is our last chance for success. Bush can thank the ISG and its instant irrelevance for making it possible.

    For the very few of you needing a refresher, Muqtada al-Sadr is the 33-year-old fourth son of a famous Iraqi Shiite Grand Ayatollah, and the grandson of another (Wiki yourself silly if you want his life story). He lacks the education to claim any sort of formal religious authority, and has built a following based on his family's name. In that regard, he's like a sober Ted Kennedy, and roughly as loyal.

    While al-Sadr's family has traditionally drawn support in Najaf and Basra, Muqtada draws must of his support from the Baghdad slum of Sadr City (formally Saddam City), and this is likely where al-Sadr's forces, the Mahdi Army, will make their stand.

    This is Sadr City.

    800px-SadrCity
    click to enlarge

    Sadr City is a dense slum of some 2 million mostly Shiite souls crammed into 8 square miles of dilapidated public housing, where electricity is sporadic, sewage runs in the streets, and death squads routinely dump the bodies of their victims.

    A description of Sadr City from GlobalSecurity.Org:

    Sadr City is subdivided into six sections. The district is one of the poorest in Baghdad. Unemployment is rampant. Homes are in disrepair. The population consists mostly of Shiite Moslems. It is also a haven for criminals released from Iraqi prisons by Saddam shortly before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    Sadr City, built by Saddam Hussein, was the scene of numerous confrontations between coalition forces and residents in 2003. Infrastructure problems still plague portions of the district. Electrical services are intermittent. Parts of some streets in some neighborhoods are flooded with sewage from long-neglected pipes. Trash pickup stopped during the war, and residents started dumping their trash on the medians in the potholed streets.

    To get an idea of the "lay of the land" in Sadr City, look at the series of 17 photos provided by the Christian Peacemaker Teams from 2005.

    This is a map view of Sadr City.

    sadrcity

    A larger view (source) of the map from which this was drawn shows Baghdad's Green Zone in the bottom left corner of the picture, on the east bank of the Tigris River. Sadr City is bordered to the northeast by a substantial canal, the Ishbiliyah neighborhood and the Army Canal to the southwest, and mostly undeveloped areas in the northwest and southeast.

    * * *

    Any attempt by U.S. and Iraqi Army forces to enter Sadr City and hunt down the Madhi Army militia is going to draw immediate comparisons to the 2004 Battle of Fallujah. Having just read an excellent detailed account of a Marine perspective of that battle in We Were One, I think I can honestly say, without any sense of humor or irony, that any battle in Sadr City will be exactly like Fallujah's Operation Phantam Fury, but completely different. That statement is not as Berra-ish as it may sound.

    Sadr City is far more compact than Fallujah. Thanks to geography, it is theoretically easier to cordon off (and the last time they did, sectarian violence dropped sharply), and once segregated into quadrants, set up for combat or search operations.

    Whether Sadr City becomes another urban moonscape, or is instead something far less intense, is very much up to al Sadr and the loose affiliates of the Madhi Army.

    If they opt for a showdown, we could see extremely intense urban fighting. It would not be out of the realm of possibility to see significant U.S. casualties in this kind of close-quarters fighting, but the toll on the Madhi Army would likely be catastrophic. The Army and Marines have had two years to study the lessons learned from the assault on Fallujah, and adapt tactics, techniques, and rules of engagement. Estimates vary wildly on the number of terrorist casualties in Phantom Fury, but 1,200-1,600 killed and roughly half that number captured are the numbers from a force in the mid-thousands is most often cited.

    The Madhi Army is estimated to be between 10,000-40,000 strong. Extrapolating out similar casualty rates for a similar urban combat, and the Madhi Army could suffer between 2,500-10,000 killed, with thousands wounded and captured.

    If the bulk of the Madhi Army instead decides that martyrdom is best left for another time and decides to melt away, casualties could be considerably lower, and the operation could morph into a deadly Easter egg hunt. Coalition forces dodging booby-traps, IEDs, and the occasional sniper or small unit ambush could capture and destroy some or most of the Madhi army’s military capability.

    In any even, this is likely the next large-scale battleground in Iraq, and a battle that increasing appears must be fought if Iraq hopes to suceed.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:25 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

    December 08, 2006

    Derrick Shareef, Trash Can Grenadier

    What. A. Moron.

    The Smoking Gun has the affidavit. Ace got it right when he described Shareef's plan as "more aspirational than operational."

    Even if the no-so-bright Shareef had managed to obtain a quartet of fragmentation grenades as he intended, he seems to forget that the average mall trash can (at least many I've seen) are made of pretty stern stuff. I'm sure they vary, but many I've seen are made of concrete or steel outer can bodies, with strong, lightweight plastic or aluminum can liners that hold the actual trash.

    As your typical frag only weighs about a pound and the kind of cans described would tend to both constrain fragments and force the explosive blast towards the path of least resistance (straight up, away from people), it seems only one guy would be in severe mortal danger in such an attack.

    ocscar
    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    December 06, 2006

    Iraq Study Group Report

    The Iraq Study Group Report is posted here (PDF).

    I've only had time to skim through the executive summary up through the assessment thus far, but don't see anything inconsistent with the findings of the report that were leaked previously. Baker & Co. are not offering any radically new ideas. I think an argument can be made that much of what is said in this report is merely the dusting off of the same failed realist diplomacy that helped create a Middle East where extremism was allowed to rise unchallenged.

    In many ways, the Baker Commission ignores the lessons of the last five years (or 35, depending on your viewpoint) and advocates plastering over modern problems with outdated applications of policies that have systematically failed over three decades.

    Baker and his contemporaries obviously exhuasted their best ideas Presidents ago.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:07 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

    McGovern: An Iraqi Genocide Would Not Be Our Problem

    In an interview with Rick and Donna Martinez on North Carolina's Morning News with Jack Boston on News-Talk 680 WPTF, former senator and noted surrenderist George McGovern was interviewed about his new book, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now.

    During the course of the interview, and after McGovern described his desire to see the United States pull completely out of Iraq within six months, Rick Martinez brought up the genocides of Shia and Kurds with weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf War, and then asked McGovern what we should do if the complete pullout led to a similar wave of genocidal killings.

    I'm paraphrasing here, but McGovern's response was something along the lines of "it's not our problem," unless we get some sort of an international mandate to go back in to correct it.

    As we are all well aware, the Rwandan Genocide saw between 800,000-1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus slaughtered over about 100 days in 1994. We are still waiting for McGovern's "international" action in Darfur, a slow-motion genocide that has been on-going since 2003, and which has cost 400,000 lives thus far, with no end in sight. McGovern knows any international action to an Iraqi genocide would be slow or more likely, non-existent.

    What McGovern is saying is that he does not care if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis—most likely Sunnis—are slaughtered in Iraq as the result of the immediate U.S. pullout he calls for.

    Looking Out

    So much for multi-culturalism.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    December 04, 2006

    Boo Freaking Hoo

    I hope that you are sitting down as you read this, because the surprise of what I am about to tell you will make you weak in the knees:

    The NY Times has published an article with the apparent goal of trying to generate sympathy for a terrorist.

    Shocking, I know.

    And before you ask, yes, the Times is quite willing to help his defense team work on a new angle.

    Now lawyers for Mr. Padilla, 36, suggest that he is unfit to stand trial. They argue that he has been so damaged by his interrogations and prolonged isolation that he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of “truth serums.”

    Just one problem with that angle:

    A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Todd Vician, said Sunday that the military disputes Mr. Padilla’s accusations of mistreatment. And, in court papers, prosecutors deny “in the strongest terms” the accusations of torture and say that “Padilla’s conditions of confinement were humane and designed to ensure his safety and security.”

    “His basic needs were met in a conscientious manner, including Halal (Muslim acceptable) food, clothing, sleep and daily medical assessment and treatment when necessary,” the government stated. “While in the brig, Padilla never reported any abusive treatment to the staff or medical personnel.”

    Jose Padilla, the violent gang-banging ex-con Muslim convert from Chicago who attempted to murder and maim his fellow Americans in a dirty bomb attack, is once again painted as the victim by the New York Times.

    Color me unimpressed.

    Update: For the record, for my "netroots" visitors...

    The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Executive Branch does have the legal right to hold Padilla. I'm sorry that your "reality-based" worldview won't accept it, but the courts have already decided that the President does have the authority to militarily detain:

    ...a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.

    That narrowly defines that the Executive does have the legal, quite Constitutional right to make specific detentions.

    That narrow definition should also belay the squawkings of the hyper-emotive, Chicken Little leftists that still insist, against all factual evidence to the contrary, that Bush can through anyone in jail at any time, for any reason, without hope of a trial.

    It won't, of course.

    Little things like facts and court decisions just get in the way of their essential "truthiness" that President Bush is a big old evil fascist, and that what really matters, facts be damned.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:57 AM | Comments (65) | TrackBack

    December 01, 2006

    Open Season

    Lots of things are flying around today, and trying to contextualize, compartmentalize, and sort through them in a logical manner is proving to be difficult.

    I've just read MSM bias: "Everybody knows ... from the Alabama Liberation Front (via Instapundit, which touches on the ficticious story of six men "burned alive" in Baghdad and the AP's refusal to back down from the story, and the dangers of "groupthink" and so-called conventional wisdom. I then read Dr. Sanity's Systematic Subversion and the Ultimate Triumph of Freedom, which I think was supposed to optomistic about the ultimate triumph of freedom over tyranny, but it's stopping points along the way, highlighting how terrorists support Democratic politics becuase they indeed share some of the same goals (if not for the same reasons), the impression of anomie upon the American people by a mindlessly self-destructive media and the majority of our political leadership, and questions about whether Islam was compatible with freedom, and what the answer to that question meant for the future, left me rather emotionally exhausted.

    Toss in my own continuing, pre-existing disgust with a media machine more focused on profit and spreading (and dictating) conventional wisdom than doing it's job, the apparent resurrection of foreign policy realism (the same incompetent, political-party spanning philosophy that did much to create the conditions favorable for the rise of terrorism), the overly war-like actions of Iran and Syria that every nation on the planet seems to see, but chooses to ignore, and you might understand why I'm getting a headache trying to make sense of it all.

    But is there any sense to be made?

    Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor of the Associated Press, is going to bat and supporting a story that actually has less credible evidence that the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes fiasco, with anonymous reporters, anonymous witnesses, no physical evidence and one named witness, who it turns out, is not who he claims to be. Carroll even goes to the absurd extreme of saying that since they've used the fictional Captain for numerous stories, that he must be real.

    We've been feeding you stories from someone who doesn't exist for months, and now is too late to complain about it seems to be her defense, and curiously, (or perhaps not), no other news organization wants to tackle this, and for a very telling reason: the methodologically flawed stringer-run, faith-based, virtual reporting exposing the glaring weaknesses of Associated Press news-gathering efforts here are the norm among news organizations in Iraq. They news gathering techniques used in Iraq are fatally corrupt, easy for enemy propagandists to exploit, and worst of all, it is all but certain that media organizations such as the Associates Press are well aware of these flaws, but have chosen not modify them becuase these reporting methods were yeilding the "common sense" reporting that they desired. Top media management supports inaccurate stories, devoid of facts, because these stories fit their preconceived ideas of what they expect should be happening, even if the events themselves are false.

    It's psychic newscasting, where they forecast what the events should be, and tailor a story to match it. It's a lot of things... but it isn't honest, it isn't credible, and it isn't news, and those who "stand for nothing and fall for anything" aren't confined to an incurious and lazy media.

    As Pat Santy's post notes, those Islamic terrorists who seek our deaths, refer to one of poltical parties in brotherly terms. Leaders of top terrorists groups openly rooted that same poltical party in the 2006 midterms, just as Osama bin Laden's push for an American withdrawal from the War on Terror in 2004 was so similar to that party's own views, that their candidate attributes his loss to Osama's tape, a tape which exposed their too similar views.

    Vasko Kohlmayer outlines the similarity between the chosen party of terrorists and the Islamofascists themselves quite specifically in World Defense Review:


    Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country's war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.

    Democrats' devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:

    • They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls
    • They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
    • They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
    • They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
    • They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
    • They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
    • They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
    • They have impugned and demeaned our military
    • They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
    • They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
    • They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
    • They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

    While some may quibble over Kolhmayer's choice of wording, these factual acuracy of the postions he represents are all quite true, and heavily documented by the media, the pronoucements of liberal blogs, and the words of Democratic politicians, who to this very day support policies that seek to weaken America while strenghtening the hand of our enemies, supporting terrorism, even if accidentally.

    To add to the Democrats on-going cohesion with our terrorist enemies, we have among us leaders on both sides of the political that ignore the increasingly obvious fact, that for their to be any hope of a stable Middle East, Iran and Syria must be forced out of their state sponshopship of terrorism.

    These two terror-supporting states, who right now attempting to force the Lebanese government to step down peacefull now because they failed in their attempt to murder enough of Fouad Siniora's Cabinet ministers to enforce their coup d'etat at the barrel of a gun. Iran and Syria used Hezbollah earlier this year to instigate a nearly month-long war, that some defense analysts think was ordered by Iran to test Israeli military capabilities.

    Iran has also been supplying both training and munitions to Sadrists to target American soldiers and destabilize Iraq, as Syria has supplied Sunni insurgents and allowed foreign fighters to inflitrate into al-Anbar province for these same reasons.
    And yet, we have politicians and media elites purposefully ignoring the obviously correct course of action of killing those who target our soldiers for death. Instead, they propose establishing dialogue, as if talking with our moral enemies while they attempt to kill us is somehow an intelligent course of action.

    Dr. Sanity seems convinced that in the end, that freedom with prevail. I hope for that outcome as well, but fear that our current moral cowardice in confronting those who boldly and mortally stand against us, will mean that millions more will die in that march for freedom than otherwise would have to perish with direct and decisive actions to end their threat today.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:47 PM | Comments (65) | TrackBack

    November 30, 2006

    ISG Weighs In

    The recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group have finally gone public... through a leak, of course:

    Following an intense assessment of U.S. policies in the war in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group will recommend that a "gradual but meaningful" reduction of U.S. troops begin "relatively early in the New Year," a source familiar with the group's deliberations told CNN.

    The language in the report -- which was compiled at the urging of Congress -- is being fine-tuned before it is presented to President Bush next week, but according to the source the work on the findings is basically done.

    In the bipartisan panel's view, Bush needs to insist on implementing strict timetables for Iraqi improvements and communicate to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that there will be substantial troop reductions beginning in January.

    While not providing a specific timetable for withdrawal -- which Bush opposes -- the group suggests major combat units be deployed "over time" to what the source described as "out of the bull's eye."

    Cut and crawl.

    Nuance, kids. Impose impotence as foreign policy.

    It's worked so well so far.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:12 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    November 28, 2006

    One War, Not Yet Fully Engaged

    Please tell me that this means he gets it:

    President Bush said Tuesday he is not ready to abandon the battlefield in Iraq to sectarian insurgents whose violent attacks on innocent Iraqis are part of a broad goal to overthrow governments and send coalition forces running.

    "Extremists are using terror to stop the spread of freedom. Some are Shiite extremists, others are Sunni extremists, but they represent different faces of the same threat. And if they succeed in undermining fragile democracies and drive the forces of freedom out of the region, they will have an open field to pursue their goals," Bush said in a speech at the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia.

    Insurgents "seek to convince America and our allies that we cannot defeat them and that our only hope is to withdraw and abandon an entire region to their domination," he said. "If we allow the extremists to do this, then 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act."

    I can hope that President Bush means what he says here. It would mean that he does, in fact, still understand the stakes of the larger conflict beyond the borders of Iraq, but what troubles me is his reluctance to publicly admit what he already knows, which is that those most responsible for the continued support and spread of violence in Iraq is not al Qaeda, but Iran and Syria.

    As I've mentioned previously, a state of war exists between the United States and the governments of Iran and Syria, and that the question before us now is whether or not we chose to acknowledge this state of war that our adversaries have instigated, and if we will take the steps needed end this state of conflict with a minimal loss of life on all sides.

    Bob Woodward's book, State of Denial, states that Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have been urging Hezbollah to train Iraqi insurgents on how to build and use shaped-charge IEDs to target American armored vehicles.

    Woodward states (via NRO):

    Pages 414-415: "Some evidence indicated that the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was training insurgents to build and use the shaped IED's, at the urging of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That kind of action was arguably an act of war by Iran against the United States. If we start putting out everything we know about these things, Zelikow felt, the administration might well start a fire it couldn't put out..."

    Page 449: "The components and the training for (the IEDs) had more and more clearly been traced to Iran, one of the most troubling turns in the war."

    Page 474ß: "The radical Revolutionary Guards Corps had asked Hizbollah, the terrorist organization, to conduct some of the training of Iraqis to use the EFPs, according to U.S. Intelligence. If all this were put out publicly, it might start a fire that no one could put out...Second, if it were true, it meant that Iranians were killing American soldiers — an act of war..."

    This same theme was picked up by today's New York Times, which reports:

    A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

    The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.

    Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.

    While they would never dare to characterize it as such, the Times article verifies what Woodward and former FBI Director Louis Freeh has already told us: we are at War with Iran.

    Iran builds shaped-charge IEDS, delivers those shaped-charge IEDS to terrorists that they have created and/or trained, for use against American soldiers. Iran is quite seriously at war with the United States. Why do we refuse to acknowledge that?

    Michael Ledeen notes (my bold):

    Thanks to Cliff, and to Dexter Filkins for getting someone to admit, once again, that Iran and Syria are all over Iraq. Victor says we should first stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's skipping a step. It is impossible so long as the mullahs rule in Tehran and Assad commands in Damascus. It is a regional war. If we continue to misunderstand it, if we remain locked in this fundamental error of strategic vision, we will endlessly respond to our enemies' initiatives, playing defense in one place after another. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow in Lebanon, Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopea and Eritrea (that is the mullahs' game plan), then in Israel and Europe, and finally here at home. We do not need intelligence agencies to know this, all we need to do is listen to our enemies, who announce it at the top of their lungs.

    There is no escape from this war, and we haven't even begun to wage it. Once we do, we will find that we've got many political and economic weapons, most of them inside our enemies' lands. I entirely agree with Victor that Iran and Syria are fragile, brittle, and anxious. They know their people hate them, and they know that revolution could erupt if we supported it.

    Of course, as Victor says, our leaders may be so demoralized that we could just surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the realists and the antisemites desire. But that would only delay the reckoning, and ensure that the war will be far bloodier.

    I stated in Kneecapping Snakes and other posts that the one sure way to end the state sponsorship of terrorism is to make that sponsorship extremely counterproductive for the nation/states involved. Assad in Syria and the Mullah's in Iran support terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere, because this support is a cost-effective way for them to project their foreign policy goals.

    Their goals--the humiliating defeat of the United States in Iraq, the destruction of Israel, their push of nuclear weapons and increasing regional control and influence--are quite clear, but then, so is the remedy to this problem; if President Bush and allied nations admit to and treat this as a regional war.

    If we limit out goals in Iran and Syria to knocking them out of the terror game and don't try to rebuild their societies from the ground up, we can do so relatively easily by crushing the ability of Iran to threaten Persian Gulf shipping and by taking out its refineries. Ironically, Iran is oil-rich, but gas-poor.

    Coalition air strikes targeting the Iranian Navy, refineries, and other key targets could bring the mullacracy to it's knees within weeks, without the significant use of U.S. ground forces, and only a (relatively minor) projection of air power. A U.S. Navy blockade of Oman would keep Iran from importing the gasoline it needs to survive.

    Syria, minus Iranian support, would be even easier to destabilize.

    Take Syria and Iran out of the terror game, and Hezbollah begins to falter in Lebanon, giving Lebanese democracy a chance. Take Syria and Iran out of the terror game, and Israeli citizens wouldn't have to worry about Hezbollah's ability to so quickly rearm and instigate another war.

    Take Syria and Iran out of the terror game, and manpower, weaponry, and funding for al Qaeda in Iraq begins to abate, as the growing number of Sunni tribes embracing the Sahawa movement hunt down and kill foreign fighters. Take Syria and Iran our out of the terror game, and Muqtada al-Sadr, the thug-leader of Shiites in the Baghdad slums, suddenly finds his Medhi Army militia without new munitions, or training, or financial support, and as his capability as a military threat fades, so does his political power.

    The greatest "secret" in the War on Terror is that we have the capability of turning the strategic war around on a dime, if only our leaders will lead.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:05 PM | Comments (91) | TrackBack

    WaPo: Selective Reporting on al-Anbar?

    I can't say that this morning's Dafna Linzer/Thomas Ricks article Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker in the Washington Post comes as a surprise considering the overall tone of their reporting on the War in Iraq, but this article, based on an update of selectively-released elements of a previous classified report that many feel was taken out of context, seems to run counter to what many others are seeing in the same area of Iraq.

    What appears to be the most easily refutable charge brought forth in the WaPo article occurs in the lede:

    The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

    This contention, of course, seems directly challenged by the emergence of the Sahawa, or the Awakening, a movement among the major Sunni tribes of al Anbar against al Qaeda. Sunni tribes are increasingly leading the fight against al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents.

    Fumento, who is on the ground in Ramadi and is reporting first-hand accounts, is buttressed by others who have or who are about to have first-hand experience in that province in Iraq.

    Linzer and Ricks based their article on selectively-leaked excerpts for a classified Marine report and the words of anonymous "experts" in Washington, D.C.

    Michael Fumento is there, on the ground in al-Anbar's capital of Ramadi, reporting the words of real people, by name, who are actively engaged in operations on the ground.

    Given his proximity and many supporting accounts, I tend to think the Linzer/Ricks article is a fine example of reporters cherry-picking evidence to support a pre-determined outcome.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:47 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

    November 27, 2006

    On Non-Civilians

    The Chicago Tribune carries an article today by Joel Greenberg on the increasing frequency with which Palestinian militants are being shielded from Israeli strikes by the interference of Palestinian non-combatants:

    On a rooftop in a crowded neighborhood here, about 30 Palestinian women sat on chairs and mattresses on a recent afternoon, serving as human shields against a possible Israeli air strike on the family home of a prominent Hamas militant.

    As an Israeli drone buzzed overhead, the women were defiant.

    Our technology is faith in God," said Itaf al-Masri, 47.

    The scene was an example of the kind of struggle waged here in recent months between the Israeli military and the Palestinians, a battle between a high-tech army and the simpler arms and tactics of militants and their civilian supporters. The confrontation, halted by a tenuous cease-fire Sunday, was reminiscent of the challenges faced by the U.S. military in Iraq and in the past during the Vietnam War.

    Gaza militants fired crude but deadly homemade rockets at Israel and dug tunnels under the border with Egypt to smuggle in arms. In one standoff with Israeli troops, Palestinian women marched to a mosque where militants were holed up and enabled them to escape. The Israelis used sophisticated surveillance technology and aircraft to hunt down rocket squads and kill militant leaders, often also hitting civilians.

    Greenberg refuses to ask the question that his article begs, namely, at what point do ideologically-aligned non-combants shielding militants cease occupying the protected status of "civilian?"

    In asymmetrical warfare, does the status of civilian always exist for non-militants, or should there be a new classification to account for those somewhere between active militancy and those that are truly non-participatory?

    I'd opine that the Palestinian women in the Greenberg story above, by voluntarily interjecting themselves into a projected conflict area as human shields as partisans acting on behalf of Hamas militants, have surrendered their rights to be defined as "civilians." They are ideologically-aligned with terrorist organizations, but that alone does not make them loose their protected status as civilians. Nor does the fact that they are human shields remove their protected status, as human shields can be involuntary.

    No, what should remove their status as "civilians" is that they have willfully interjected themselves into a conflict with the express intent of providing immediate tactical support for a terrorist group. Their purposeful decision to run interference for terrorists should not in any way prevent an Israeli military response.

    Historically, Muslims have rarely recognized the existence of any civilians (thereby justifying everything from 9/11 to Israeli market bombings to the murder of Indonesian schoolgirls), and the the creation of a "targetable non-militant participant" status would help level the playing field against those dehumanists that preach on-going jihad.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:42 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    November 24, 2006

    Russia Delivers U.S. Missile Targets To Iran

    How thoughtful:

    Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran, Russian news agencies quoted military industry sources as saying, in the latest sign of a Russian-US rift over Iran.

    "Deliveries of the Tor-M1 have begun. The first systems have already been delivered to Tehran," ITAR-TASS quoted an unnamed, high-ranking source as saying Friday.

    The United States has pressed Russia to halt military sales to Iran, which Washington accuses of harbouring secret plans to build a nuclear weapon.

    Moscow has consistently defended its weapons trade with Iran. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the contract for 29 rocket systems, signed in December last year, was legitimate because the Tor-M1 has a purely defensive role.

    ITAR-TASS reported that the rockets were to be deployed around Iran's nuclear sites, including the still incomplete, Russian-built atomic power station at Bushehr.

    Isn't that nice of the Russians to deliver a short-range missile system designed to take on low to mid-level targets, knowing that we have long-range anti-radar missiles to counter them?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    November 22, 2006

    Kneecapping Snakes

    Jules Crittenden, Boston Herald city editor and columnist blogs this morning:

    It will be interesting after the assassination of Pierre Gemayel in Lebanon ... not to mention last summer's hijacking of the nation by Hezbollah ... not to mention last year's assassination of Rafik Hariri ... not to mention the last 25 years of Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanon and now in Iraq ... it will be interesting to see if anyone will still counsel talks with Syria and Iran under any terms that do not include a very real threat of force.

    The assassination of Pierre Gemayel was the fifth assassination of an anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon, and was meant to be the sixth--Michel Pharaon, a Greek Catholic member of the ruling coalition and minister for parliamentary affairs--was meant to be the fifth, but the hit at his office in Lebanon just hours before the Gemayel assassination failed. The goal of targeting Gemayel and Pharon is clear. If both assassinations were successful, less than two-thirds of the 24-member Lebanese cabinet would remain following the now suspicious resignations of six pro-Syrian/pro-Iranian (five Shiite, 1 Christian) ministers last week.

    The combination of the Gemayel assassination and the earlier resignations means that the government is effectively frozen, unable to enact any new legislation. If the attempted assassination of Pharaon had been successful, a future assassination attempt against any other minister is successful, or another minister resigns, Article 69 of the Lebanese constitution stipulates that the government is automatically resigned. It is likely a fair assumption that the assassination attempts on Gemayel (successful) and Pharaon (unsuccessful) were conducted with the express intent of toppling the pro-western Fuad Sinora government, which is then quite likely to be replaced by a pro-Syrian, Hezbollah-controlled regime. It is, as Michael Totten noted yesterday, nothing less than a coup d'etat in progress.

    President Bush condemned the Gemayel murder as an act of terrorism and accused Syria and Iran of attempting to undermine Lebanon's government, but stopped short of accusing them of Gemayel's murder, presumably because of the current lack of evidence of direct Syrian and/or Iranian involvement.

    But, considering the facts that we already know about Iranian and Syrian involvement in supporting terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere, do we really need any more proof to justify taking action against both nations?

    As I've been noting with increased sense of urgency over the past week or so, Syria and Iran must be made accountable in some way for their continued state sponsorship of terrorism. Currently, that support is most precipitous in Lebanon where they are supporting what appears to be a coup attempt, and with their support of terrorists operating directly against U.S. and Iraqi government forces inside Iraq.

    Obviously, political pressure would be the preferred manner of dealing with both nations, but thus far, both nations have shown themselves to be adamantly unmoved by U.S. entreaties to stay out of affairs in Lebanon, and Iraq.

    Syria and Iran were both warned weeks ago to avoid involving themselves in an attempt to topple the government in Lebanon; Gamayel's murder and the attempt on Pharaon's life were their answer.

    Iran and Syria have played a direct role in supporting the terrorist group Hezbollah with $300 million in cash and their rearming, providing up to 30,000 rockets to levels even greater than Hezbollah had before the recent conflict they instigated against Israel by kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

    In addition to attempting to topple the government of Lebanon, Iran and Syria have been behind efforts to cause instability in Iraq, permitting terrorists to use their borders to infiltrate in with pre-rigged IEDs that are used to target U.S. and British servicemen.

    According to Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was urging Hezbollah to train Iraqi insurgents on how to build and use shaped-charge IEDs to target American armored vehicles. Woodward states (via NRO):

    Pages 414-415: "Some evidence indicated that the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was training insurgents to build and use the shaped IED's, at the urging of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That kind of action was arguably an act of war by Iran against the United States. If we start putting out everything we know about these things, Zelikow felt, the administration might well start a fire it couldn't put out..."

    Page 449: "The components and the training for (the IEDs) had more and more clearly been traced to Iran, one of the most troubling turns in the war."

    Page 474ß: "The radical Revolutionary Guards Corps had asked Hizbollah, the terrorist organization, to conduct some of the training of Iraqis to use the EFPs, according to U.S. Intelligence. If all this were put out publicly, it might start a fire that no one could put out...Second, if it were true, it meant that Iranians were killing American soldiers — an act of war..."

    And from the same National Review column:

    It's not the first time we have had information about Iran's murder of Americans. Louis Freeh tells us that the same thing happened following the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. On page 18 of Freeh's My FBI he reports that Saudi Ambassador Bandar told Freeh "we have the goods," pointing "ineluctably towad Iran." The culprits were the same as in Iraq: Hezbollah, under direction from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. And then there was a confession from outgoing Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani to Crown Prince Abdullah (at the time, effectively the Saudi king): page 19: "the Khobar attack had been planned and carried out with the knowledge of the Iranian supreme ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei."

    As Freeh puts it, "this had been an act of war against the United States of America."

    Whether or not the President acknowledges it, a state of war exists between the United States and the governments of Iran and Syria. The question before us now is whether or not we chose to acknowledge this state of war that our adversaries have instigated, and if we will take the steps needed end this state of conflict with a minimal loss of life on all sides.

    Any response we make—political, economic or military—may trigger a renewed rocket assault on Israel by Hezbollah, and a dramatic surge in violence against U.S. and Iraqi government forces in Iraq by Shia militias loyal to Iran. This is in addition to direct counterstrikes that the Syrian and Iranian military may have preplanned against U.S. forces and allied nations throughout the Middle East. Such actions would likely include Iranian attempts to target and destroy refineries, oil pumping stations, ports, and pipelines and oil rigs in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf Nations, in addition to an attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz to shipping, thereby paralyzing many of the world's economies dependent on the free flow of Persian Gulf oil.

    Therefore, the best and only option available to the United States and allied nations threatened by Iran and Syria is an overwhelming series of air strikes that will cripple these ability of these two nations to project military power both directly and indirectly, along with the explicit message that further measures taken by Iran and Syria to effect changes through the use of terrorism or through conventional warfare will result in far more debilitating attacks that would wreck the economies of these nations and threaten the very existence of their regimes.

    The "biggest sticks" in the Iranian arsenal are two-fold; their ability to influence terrorists in Iraq and in Lebanon, and their purported ability to close the Persian Gulf to shipping via military means. Syria has much more limited capabilities.

    Very little can be done to directly stop Syrian and Iranian contributions to terrorism, but as Syria is something of a client state of Iran, our best opportunity may be to take on the "head of the snake;" where Iran leads, Syria will likely follow, and Iran is in a far more precipitous position than they would have us believe.

    As Global Security notes, Iran's primary means of affecting Persian Gulf Shipping is their smallest and most obsolete branch of service, the Iranian Navy:

    Iran's three destroyers are over 50 years old and are not operational. The readiness of the three 25-year-old frigates is almost non-existent, and the two 30-year-old corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. Ten of 20 missile-equipped fast attack craft have limited operational readiness, and four of them are not seaworthy as of 2001. Only 10 Chinese-made Thodor-class craft are operationally reliable. The four 30-year-old minesweepers are obsolete, lack seaworthiness, and do not have a mine-sweeping capability. Iran has many amphibious and auxiliary ships, but these are superfluous to requirements and are used purely for training personnel. Iran's ten hovercraft are old and used sparingly.

    Iran's greatest naval threats are Chinese-made high-speed C-14 and similar missile gunboats, three Russian-designed Kilo-class submarines, and island and platform-mounted anti-ship missile batteries.

    It would take comparatively little effort or tactical risk for American Air Force and Naval aircraft to send the ships, small craft and submarines of the Iranian Navy to the bottom of the Persian Gulf, with Iranian forces on platforms and on small Iranian-controlled islands being slightly more difficult.

    The destruction of Iran's nominal Persian Gulf fleet would be a crushing psychological blow to both Iran and Syria, and it would greatly reduce Iran's capability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping, a factor that to date has let Iran support terrorism as the rest of the world has turned a blind eye.

    What would possibly keep Iran or their proxies from retaliating is a threat issued concurrent to U.S. air strikes on the Iranian navy:

    You've seen what we have done to your navy. How long with your government last if we decide to target your refineries and blockade any ship attempting to deliver refined petroleum products to Iran? Stop supporting terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon, or these further steps will be taken.

    One of Iran's dirty little secrets is this: for a nation rich in oil, they are very poor in their ability to convert this oil into usable fuel.

    The threat issued would state that if Iran attempts to retaliate, either directly or indirectly to the reduction of their Navy, further air strikes could decimate their very limited refinery capability, while a blockade in the Gulf of Oman of Iran-bound tankers carrying refined fuels would cause Iran to "dry up" within weeks. Iran’s military and their economy would be crippled with comparatively little effort on the part of the United States Navy, which could enforce a blockade well outside the range of Iranian countermeasures.

    Iran has already begun a war with the United States and seeks to wage it via proxies in Iraq and Lebanon. It is time that we reduce the threat of Hezbollah and Shiite militias to ourselves and our allies by cutting them off at the knees.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:10 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    November 21, 2006

    Crude Messages

    As you probably already know by now, the political story of the day is that another Lebanese politician has been assassinated.

    Lebanon’s industry minister Pierre Gemayel was driving in Jdeideh when he was boxed in by two cars. the first slammed on its brakes causing Gemayel to crash into it, while the second car pinned Gemayla's vehicle from behind. Gunmen fired a minimum of 14 shots.

    Like Rafik Hariri who was assassinated in a car bombing on February 14, 2005, Pierre Gemayel was anti-Syrian.

    Reaction:

    Wael Abu Faour, an anti-Syrian lawmaker, told Al-Jazeera, "We directly accuse the Syrian regime of assassinating Gemayel and hold (Syrian) President Bashar Assad responsible for this assassination ... aimed at sending Lebanon into a civil war."

    In an interview with CNN, Saad Hariri, Rafik's son and leader of the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority, implicitly blamed Damascus, saying, "We believe the hand of Syria is all over the place." He said Gemayel was "a friend, a brother to all of us" and appeared to break down after saying: "we will bring justice to all those who killed him."

    Gemayel's death came hours before a deadline for the U.N. Security Council to approve a letter endorsing an agreement with Lebanon to create a tribunal to prosecute Rafik Hariri's suspected killers.

    It is suspected that top officials in the Syrian government, perhaps even Syrian dictator Bashar Assad himself, may be implicated in ordering Hariri's 2005 murder.

    While any assassination of an anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon is suspicious, the timing of the Gemayel murder is incredibly explosive, and perhaps that was the intention.

    In addition to the implicit warning the assassination sends to those who would endorse the U.N. tribunal, the murder comes just days before planned Hezbollah protests aimed at toppling the Lebanese government. The government could also be toppled with the death or resignation of one more minister of the Lebanese cabinet. As Michael Totten notes, "Looks like the coup d'etat is in progress." Indeed, an attempt was made on the life of Michel Pharaon, the minister of state from parliamentary affairs just hours before Gemayel's murder.

    The U.S government had only recently accused Syria and Iran of plotting to overthrow the Lebanese government, and a U.S. State Department official, Nicholas Burns, stated, "We will give full support to the Saniora government in the days and weeks ahead."

    This begs the question: what kind of support does the United States have to offer a Lebanese government on the brink of collapse?

    Note: As always, Allahpundit provides the roundup.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Unseasonably Cruel

    And thus is the human cost of hatred.

    iraqi_boy

    A joint U.S. Iraqi raid into the Sadr City slums of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army led to a firefight between coalition forces and Mahdi Army militiamen. The fighting was intense enough that an air strike was called in on a building from which the militiamen were firing, leading to the deaths of this boy's younger brother and two others, the wounding of 15, and the capture of 7 militiamen, one of which is believed to have taken part in the kidnapping of a still-missing American soldier.

    The Mahdi Army is one of the most active factions in the on-going sectarian violence in Baghdad, responsible for the kidnapping, torture, and murder of hundreds (if not thousands) of Iraqi Sunnis. The militiamen--likely his own relatives considering the fact that Iraqis tend to live in family compounds--attempted to use his home as a bunker. Of course, that doesn't matter to this child. He only knows that his baby brother is dead.

    It's easy to sling blame around.

    He and the rest of his family will likely grow up hating the United States and the Iraqi government troops that participated in this raid. It is highly unlikely that they will acknowledge their own far greater culpability.

    Their neighborhood was raided because coalition forces were acting on intelligence that kidnappers and murderous thugs lived there, and these same thugs--perhaps his own father, brothers, uncles, or cousins--likely kidnapped, tortured and murdered fellow Iraqis, and then were daft enough to try to fight coalition forces from a home with children inside. While U.S. air support pulled the trigger on the munitions that killed his brother, the militiamen in their midst, firing at U.S. and Iraqi forces, caused that trigger to be pulled. They can add their own young relative to their body count. They will not stop for a second to think about the fact that they have likely caused the same trauma in loss in Sunni families just blocks or miles away.

    Compounding the loss and magnifying the lessons unlearned are fellow Shiites like legislator Saleh Al-Ukailli.

    "I am suspending my membership in parliament since it remains silent about crimes such as this against the Iraqi people," legislator Saleh Al-Ukailli told reporters outside the Imam Ali Hospital. "I will not return to parliament until the occupation troops leave the country."

    Al-Ukailli is one of 30 legislators in Iraq's 275-member parliament who follow Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric whose main offices are in Sadr City.

    Al-Ukailli could care less about "crimes... against the Iraqi people."

    Like far too many Sadr loyalists in the Iraqi government, he seems to harbor no concerns about the crimes his fellow Shia perpetrate, and only professes outrage once they are forced to account for their own depravity. Left to their own devices, such men would continue to turn a blind eye to the slaughter of Sunnis and Kurds, as long as it suits his purpose. I have little doubt that men such as Al-Ukailli turn a blind eye when Sunni children have their fathers and brothers slaughtered. They are democratically elected, but still do not understand democracy, nor freedom, nor compromise.

    * * *

    And so here in America, over broadband networks in climate-controlled comfort, in a far more stable environment, we still carp over why we went to war, and when we should leave, and whether or not the cost we are paying as a nation is too high. We see things all too often through our own warped prisms, playing politics as children die.

    "We caused this! Out of Iraq NOW!"

    This is the cry I hear from many, every day, from both the political left which feels we never should have been there, and from moderates and many of those on the right who now feel our continued presence is a mistake. Our costs--1.7 lives a day--are too much for our mercilessly civilized post-modern sensibilities.

    And yet we know the ugly secret, don't we?

    We know that for every tragic loss of an American soldier, sailor, airman or marine in Iraq, Iraqi soldiers, policemen, and civilians pay a far higher price. We know that comparatively, our costs are few.

    In a nation under severe internal strife, brave men in Iraq still show up at recruiting stations to become policemen and soldiers. They have nowhere to return to, nowhere to run, and have a simple choice; become a victor, or become a victim. In Ramadi, the capital of the al-Anbar province and long a stronghold of Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists, the Sahawa, or the Awakening, has come. Sunni tribesmen formerly allied with the insurgency are swelling police ranks, capturing and killing foreign terrorists and native-born anti-Iraqi forces alike. In Ramadi, it appears the Iraqis have shed enough blood to appreciate and crave both stability and freedom. It is slow going, but progress is being made day by day.

    Will we eventually see that same yearning for stability, freedom, and peace in a far more complex Baghdad? History tells us that all wars eventually end as a matter of will or a matter of eradication. One side must either be utterly destroyed, or its will to fight must be. This is equally true in both conventional and asymmetrical warfare, one of which the U.S. military has won convincingly in Iraq, and the other, which must eventually be won or lost by the Iraqi people themselves.

    The purpose of U.S. forces in Iraq is not to conclusively defeat the various anti-Iraqi factions, but to provide training and material support to Iraqi government forces so that they can win the war. At the same time, we seek to destabilize anti-Iraqi forces and help to provide an environment where political and social change can take root, as we are now seeing in Ramadi and elsewhere.

    Our military does not need to "go big" in Iraq, but it does need to "go long," one of the things the Bush Administration has called correctly. We do not need more troops, but we need to utilize the soldiers we do have to train Iraqi forces and provide support for them as necessary in "the long war" to stamp out the insurgency by breaking the enemy's will to fight over time.

    Part of that support will be engaging in raids that will on occasion lead to civilian deaths, especially when these civilians harbor anti-Iraqi forces of various stripes. If we don't mature enough to accept the fact that some innocents die in war, then the abandonment policy favored by some will certainly lead to far more civilian deaths through a far more violent civil war and a potential genocide. You can pay a blood debt of comparatively few lives now by continuing the mission, or set the stage for an even bloodier Iraqi future by withdrawing.

    This is a cold, hard fact that few on the left will address or even admit. War is cruel by nature, but to abandon an ally while the conflict rages would be the cruelest atrocity of all.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:23 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    Final Destination

    Deja vu, all over again:

    Six passengers were removed from a departing flight Monday at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and were taken for questioning by police, an airport spokesman said.

    The passengers were boarding US Airways Flight 300, bound for Phoenix, around 6:30 p.m. when crew members "saw suspicious activity" by the men and called airport police, said the spokesman, Pat Hogan. Police escorted the men off the plane and took them to be questioned, he said.

    A passenger initially raised concerns about the group through a note passed to a flight attendant, said Andrea Rader, a spokeswoman for US Airways. Police were called after the men refused requests by the captain and airport security workers to leave the plane.

    The crew described the men as Middle Eastern in appearance, Hogan said, though he didn't immediately know where they were from.

    This came just days after Sisayehiticha Dinssa was arrested at Detroit Metropolitan Airport with $79,000 in cash and a computer containing information about nuclear materials and cyanide. He was also traveling to Phoenix.

    What might all these suspicious characters be headed for Phoenix?

    Old habits die hard.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:13 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    November 20, 2006

    Advocating Assured Destruction

    It appears Jules Crittenden agrees with the general theory I wrote about Friday in Another Direction , where I advocated making Iran and Syria "feel the pain" for being active state sponsors of terrorism. Crittenden writes:

    An erroneous assumption has been made by the Iranians and by many in the west that because our ground forces are hyper-extended in Iraq, and Iranian nuke facilities are buried deep, there is nothing the United States can do about an Iranian nuclear program. This is not true. There is no need to invade or occupy Iran. We do not want to do that. We would prefer to see the Iranian people's desire for free elections honored, but that doesn't appear likely any time soon.

    What we have to do to influence Iran is explain that if Iran does not begin to cooperate with the international community, we will substantially isolate Iran and destroy its means of supporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons. This can be done incrementally, to give the Iranians an opportunity to reconsider their policy. Our Navy, not hyper-extended in Iraq, can blockade their ports. Our Air Force, also not hyper-extended in Iraq, can begin reducing their terrorist-support infrastructure. Things like oil fields, refineries and roads leading toward Syria and suspected nuclear sites. This can continue ... pretty much as long as the Iranians want it too.

    While I didn't specify it, it was primarily U.S. Air Force and Naval air power I had in mind when I advocated the reduction of Iran's naval and marine forces. Single strikes with precision munitions could destroy their few corvettes and frigates (their three destroyers are so useless they aren't worth wasting bombs on), and their remaining fleet, which is composed of patrol boats and number small craft, would be easily destroyed with cluster munitions. Only their small marine outposts near the Straits of Hormuz may require SpecOps insertions, and that is purely speculative. Air power alone may suffice.

    The other targets, the oil fields, refineries, roads, and nuclear sites, are clearly air power targets that Iran is nearly defenseless against, even with the purchase of the low-to-medium altitude TOR-1 SAMs from Russia.

    I've said it before and I will say it again and again because it bears repeating: terrorism will only be supported by states for as long as they see it as a cost-effective way to achieve their foreign policy goals. When the cost of supporting terrorism becomes too high, the state support of terrorism will cease or be greatly curtailed, making it far more difficult for terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza to survive.

    Update: I missed this earlier, but even the L.A. Times is getting on the bomb Iran bandwagon:

    If Tehran establishes dominance in the region, then the battlefield might move to Southeast Asia or Africa or even parts of Europe, as the mullahs would try to extend their sway over other Muslim peoples. In the end, we would no doubt win, but how long this contest might last and what toll it might take are anyone's guess.

    The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.

    What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy yet would come before Iran will have a bomb in hand (and also before our own presidential campaign). In time, if Tehran persisted, we might have to do it again.

    Can President Bush take such action after being humiliated in the congressional elections and with the Iraq war having grown so unpopular? Bush has said that history's judgment on his conduct of the war against terror is more important than the polls. If Ahmadinejad gets his finger on a nuclear trigger, everything Bush has done will be rendered hollow. We will be a lot less safe than we were when Bush took office.

    Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.

    After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs — the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin — and rejected the idea.

    The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II. Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him.

    Are we beginning to detect a theme, folks? Iran will not comply with economic or political pressure, and so the remaining option is military in nature, and that military option is best expresses in an air power war again key Iranian targets.

    One thing that these men are leaving out, however, is what may happen as a result of air strikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and other infrastructure sites.

    Critics of such an attack would point out that as a result, Hezbollah and Hamas would like begin another intense rocket campaign on Israel.

    I think this is entirely correct, and entirely beside the point.

    Despite all the bluster over Hezbollah's last war with Israel earlier this year, Israel suffered very few casualties. I think the figure was just 157 deaths, most of them soldiers, in Lebanon. In opposition, Hezbollah lost as many as half of their armed fighters in southern Lebanon, and their infrastructure was wrecked. Hamas and Hezbollah can indeed launch attacks, but the retaliatory strikes from Israel will certainly cause more damage.

    More troubling is the thought that an attack on Iran may trigger and Iranian ground invasion of Iraq. Iran has a military of more than 300,000, most of then conscripts, and they have long-range rockets that may cause significant Iraqi civilian casualties.

    That said, any Iranian ground invasion of Iraq would be suicidal for the Iranian troops involved. They have no air cover to speak of, and the invasion would result in a larger scale repeat of 1991's Highway of Death as they are decimated by U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy bombers. Such a crushing loss could hurt the mullahcracy, and so even as fanatical as they are, they would most likely not go this route. Iran wages asymmetrical terrorist campaign precisely to avoid the crushing losses their over-hyped military would take on a modern battlefield.

    It increasingly appears that our best option for lasting peace in Iraq and the wider Middle East is a conventional air campaign to reduce Iran's asymmetrical warfare capabilities.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:12 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

    November 17, 2006

    Another Direction

    John Donovan at Argghhh! reposts an email from a Captain in Iraq that understands what it takes to win the war in Iraq (I highly suggest reading the post in its entirety):

    Massive firepower brought down on any transgressor is the answer. Sometimes you need to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut if you want people to pay attention and learn the correct lessons in life. If an IED blows up outside someones house and the homeowners tell you that they don't know anything about, bulldoze the house and salt the ground. After you do that two or three times, Iraqis will shoot the terrorists themselves to protect their homes. I realize that this may not be totally in keeping with some people's concept of "the American way of war", but if we are in it to win it, we need to take all the steps required to totally destroy the terrorists ability to make war on us and turn the population against them. Right now, because of our kid glove approach, there is no threat to the average Iraqi that helps the terrorists or turns a blind eye. We have to make it painful to the point that the Iraqi people say, "These Americans are serious about winning and they won't stop until they have won."

    This comment indirectly highlights a current failure of the Bush Administration that I've heard elsewhere; the President has been trying to win in Iraq without committing to really fighting a war.

    Let our soldiers use their massive advantages in firepower, training, and communications to take the fight to the enemy. Quit trying to fight a "nice" war. Such weakness does not result in a victory; to win a war the other side must realize that they cannot hope to win. It should go without saying, but if the other side doesn't feel defeated, then it isn't be defeated. Enable our soldiers to rely on their training and instincts and remove the overly cumbersome rules of engagement that restrict our soldiers to the point they are fighting a defensive war.

    Towards that same end, and picking up where I left off in the previous post, Syria and Iran need to be made to feel the pain for their continued state support of terrorism.

    Countries like Iran and Syria support terrorism because the see it as a cost-effective way of projecting foreign policy. We have the capability—economic, political, and military—to make this support extremely counter-productive.

    In Syria's case, Assad's regime is particularly vulnerable to economic and political, particularly is Iran is dealt with first.

    Iran, with much more strategic importance and a larger and more modern military, is a tough nut to crack, but indeed, one that can be cracked. Orson Scott Card makes a good suggestion when he mentions taking our Iran's capability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping.

    The five ships operating in Iran's Navy—two corvettes and three frigates—are obsolete and barely functional, and are almost only symbolic in value. The 69 patrol craft making up the rest of their fleet stationed at six naval bases are highly vulnerable to air attack. Considering that the Persian Gulf is extremely shallow (averaging a depth of just 50 meters), their few submarines, which only have mine-laying (no torpedo or cruise missile) capability are also little more than targets.

    Other Iranian facilities, including naval and marine forces stations at small Iranian-held islands and abandoned oil platforms along international sea lanes, could also be quickly overwhelmed or destroyed.

    Break Iran's ability to influence or control the flow of shipping in the Persian Gulf, and you've essentially removed Iran's greatest political bargaining chip outside of their fledgling nuclear program.

    Declare to Iran and the world that the destruction of their ersatz fleet was consistent with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and in direct response to Iran's supplying the Medhi Army with Iranian-made munitions used to attack U.S forces in Iraq.

    Remind Iran that continued support of Shia insurgencies in Iraq would be grounds for further attacks on more vulnerable targets, including Iran's nuclear program.

    Iran is far more vulnerable and fragile than it's blustery rhetoric supposes, and it seems time to remind them that the continued support of terrorism does not come without an intolerably high price, and one that we are willing to make them pay.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:36 PM | Comments (33) | TrackBack

    What a Strange Way to Wage a War

    Josh Manchester of The Adventures of Chester has a warning posted at TCS Daily:

    Iraq is dangerous. Progress is measured in weeks and inches, not minutes and miles. It is weakly governed when governed at all. But to leave too early will be to compound these seemingly intractable attributes with the most deadly of sins: a failure of willpower. The world will know that when Iraq becomes the next Taliban-like state, or the next Rwanda, that it was only because the United States, the most able, powerful, and wealthy nation in the history of the world, gave up. If that disturbs you, imagine how much it delights our adversaries.

    One can only hope that the moderate Democrats that panned Nancy Pelosi's choice of John Murtha yesterday in favor of Steny Hoyer are listening.

    The Pelosi/Rangel/Levin/Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party has proven to be incredibly short-sighted, still thinking of the Iraq War as a tool to bludgeon President Bush and the Republican Party. They patently ignore the expected increased civilian deaths and possible genocide their short-sighted policy of withdrawal promise for the near-term, and the political damage that a retreat from Iraq would cause to the United States for decades to come.

    Quite frankly, I'd opine that they care more about beating Bush than what is best for this nation, or for Iraq.

    I challenge liberals, in all good faith, to explain how a near-term withdrawal from Iraq before the nation is stabilized will accomplish:

    • Making Iraq safe for Iraqis;
    • Anything other than convincing Islamists that terrorism is the best way to effect their will;
    • Anything other than making all nations around the world consider the United States to be a fickle, unreliable ally

    Please, step up and tell us how abandoning Iraq will be seen as anything other than "open season" to Sunni terrorist and insurgents, and Shiite militias and criminal gangs. Iraq is bad now, so what effect do you think that removing the 140,000 best trained and equipped soldiers in the country will have, other than an marked increase in chaos and bloodshed? For a liberal left that claims to care so much about the plight of people in third world regions, they seem all to willing to sell the Iraqi people down the river to genocide.

    Please, tell us why the terrorists that overwhelming cheered for Democratic victories in the mid-terms should view a withdrawal from Iraq as anything other than a validation of their tactics and assumptions of how to best to conquer the world.

    Iran is watching. Syria is watching. Hezbollah and Hamas are watching, as are dozens of other terrorists groups, as well as every nation in the world. What other message could they possibly receive from a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, other than that a fierce depravity is the best way to ensure they get what they desire?

    No, now is not a time to withdraw. It is a time to explain the stakes of this war to the American people, and rededicate this nation to winning the War in Iraq as one part of the overall War on Terror.

    There can be no lasting peace through withdrawal.

    Update: Via Instapundit, Investor's Business Daily has similar thoughts.

    Update: via Hot Air, Democrat Orson Scott Card lays it out on the line:

    The only issue that matters is still the War on Terror. Everybody talks about changing direction in Iraq. I agree. But I doubt they mean the same thing I do.

    The only ways to change direction in Iraq are to give up and go home – a militarily stupid and morally indefensible move – or to go to the source of the insurgents' supply and cut it off.

    Throughout this election season I have been hoping that President Bush had a bold military move against Iran up his sleeve, and that the only reason he was holding off was that he didn't want it to be perceived as an attempt to influence the election – or because he feared it would influence the election negatively.

    Well, the election is over. Will he take the necessary military action to wipe out Iran's capability to disrupt the flow of oil in the Gulf? This would remove any credible threat from Iran (for the moment, at least), making it clear to both Iran and Syria that the way is now open for the US to take whatever action is necessary to stop their support of both terrorism and the subset of terrorism called "the Iraq insurgency."

    The way to save the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in Iraq is to get regime change in Iran and Syria.

    Let's hope his fellow Democrats follow his advice.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:00 AM | Comments (51) | TrackBack

    November 15, 2006

    Who Needs Jews, Anyway?

    Ralph Peters penned a powerful editorial in this morning's New York Post advocating that the strongest measures be taken to impose order in Iraq, even if that order goes against the wishes of Iraq's elected government and comes at the barrel of a gun:

    With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight.

    Of course, we've made a decisive shift in our behavior difficult. After empowering a sectarian regime before imposing order in the streets, we would have to defy an elected government. Leading voices in the Baghdad regime - starting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - would demand that we halt any serious effort to defeat Shia militias and eliminate their death squads.

    [snip]

    From the Iraqi perspective, we're of less and less relevance. They're sure we'll leave. And every faction is determined to do as much damage as possible to the other before we go. Our troops have become human shields for our enemies.

    To master Iraq now - if it could be done - we'd have to fight every faction except the Kurds. Are we willing to do that? Are we willing to kill mass murderers and cold-blooded executioners on the spot?

    [snip]

    Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.

    We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.

    We're not really the enemy of the terrorists, militiamen and insurgents. We're their enablers. In the end, the future of Iraq will be determined by its people. The question is, which people?

    While Peters discusses Iraq specifically, much of what he says—particularly of our fantasy of a "universal code of behavior" and our enablement of terrorists—can be more or less directly applied to the budding nuclear terrorist state of Iran.

    Iran has already developed long-range missiles that can reach Israel and most of Western Europe, and they are in the process of developing ICBMs capable of hitting the United States. Iran is also in the possession of MIRV warheads to sit atop these missiles designed to deliver a nuclear payload.

    At the same time as they refine the technology to deliver nuclear warheads, the Iranian leadership has clearly and repeatedly threatened the existence of Israel, and has indeed stated that they are more than willing to accept a retaliatory nuclear strike if it means eliminating the Jewish state, as Ron Rosenbaum recounts this morning at Pajamas Media:

    Back in 2002 I initiated a major controversy among Jewish writers by daring to mention the possibility of a “second Holocaust”—-the destruction of the State of Israel, most likely through a nuclear exchange. I quoted Iranian mullah Hashemi Rasfanjani declaring that Iran would not be particularly upset to lose 10 or 15 million people in a nuclear exchange with Israel if it resulted in the extermination of 5 million Jews there and left a billion or more Muslims alive. Basically he was saying that there was no deterrence. Many didn’t want to face this, think the unthinkable and whined that one shouldn’t say such things aloud, one shouldn’t think so pessimistically, foolishly boasting of the Israeli nuclear deterrent Rasfanjani’s stance made irrelevant. (You can read about this controversy in the anthology of essays on anti-semitism I edited, Those Who Forget the Past).

    Alas a Second Holocaust is now virtually Iranian state policy.(although their leader denies the firs tone). Today Drudge links to a report that Iran’s nuclear program is nearly complete. And to a speech by Bibi Netanyahu in Los Angeles in which he says “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany”. He then adds the despairing “No one cared then. No one cares now.”

    The problem is that even if the world did care, it might not make a difference.

    Despite repeated threats against Israel's very survival in specific and that of the rest of the world in general, Iran has been allowed to push through with their nation's nuclear program without any serious attempts by the world community to stop them.

    Have we, as a world community, decided that the state of Israel and the more than 6 million Jews, Christians, and Arabs who live there and the almost 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are superfluous? Judging by the anemic actions of the world community, I think Rosenbuam's suggestion that the world—including the government of the United States—does not care that Iran seems to have every intention of attempting to "wipe Israel off the map" is entirely correct.

    Certainly, we will all feel really bad when Iran carries through with it's threat, but that sentiment will do very little for the 15-20 million people that will have died in the coming nuclear exchange while we stood by watching, unbelieving that the Iranians would do precisely what they told us they would.

    Have we chosen to abandon them to this fate? Have we already forgotten in such a few generations that we stood solemly amid the blood and ashes and swore "Never again?"

    Let's rewrite one of the Peter's paragraphs above:

    Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis Israelis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.

    We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq Iran (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.

    We're not really the enemy of the terrorists, militiamen and insurgents. We're their enablers. In the end, the future of Iraq the world will be determined by its people. The question is, which people?

    Which people, indeed.

    Does a mullahcracy intent on exterminating more than six million people (along with 10-15 million of their own citizens as a result of Israel's dying retaliatory strike) get to choose the future of this world through nuclear genocide? Or do we make the difficult and deadly decision to end the mullacracy’s reign, crushing their nuclear aspirations and their leadership before they can carry out their intentions?

    Our choice of genocides is amazingly simple: we either wipe out Iran's apocalyptic Hojjatieh mullacracy (perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of lives) and their budding nuclear weapons capability and delivery systems, or we will watch on as horror as our inaction leads to the fiery deaths of tens of millions, including 6 million Jews, 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and 10-15 million Iranians.

    Rosenbaum is wrong when he says that we might not make a difference. We clearly can make a difference, but much to our shame, I fear that we will choose not to.

    Note: More here.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:37 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    November 14, 2006

    Pu: Something Wicked...

    Iran can quit lying about their intent to use their nuclear program for peaceful means:

    International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.

    The report prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms. As well, the four-page paper made available to The Associated Press confirmed that Iran continues uranium enrichment experiments in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.

    Plutonium is an important by-product of the fuel cycle in operating nuclear reactors, producing almost a third of a nuclear power plant's energy.

    The problem? Plutonium (Pu) should not logically exist outside of nuclear power production, and Iran does not yet have that capability. Bushehr is to have Iran's first production reactor, but it is still under construction.

    That would seem to indicate that either Iran is importing plutonium, or that it has an undeclared reactor, which is admittedly far less likely, but technically possible. In any event, both the plutonium and enriched uranium found at the waste site may serve to push Israel closer to mounting a pre-emptive strike against Iran, which would in turn likely re-ignite Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israel from Lebanon, putting UNFIL's "peacekeeping" forces in the middle, precisely where Hezbollah would prefer them.

    It looks like a wider war in the Middle East may be coming sooner rather than later, and I'm increasingly convinced there is very little that anyone can do to stop it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:48 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

    Can't We All Just Get Along?

    If you happen to be al Qaeda and Iran, the answer may be yes:

    Iran is trying to form an unholy alliance with al-Qa'eda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

    Western intelligence officials say the Iranians are determined to take advantage of bin Laden's declining health to promote senior officials who are known to be friendly to Teheran.

    [snip]

    The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt's special forces, to be the organisation's number three.

    Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden's head of security, and was named on the FBI's 22 most wanted list after September 11 for his alleged involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Teheran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.

    Alarm over al-Qa'eda deepened yesterday with a Foreign Office warning that the group was determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack on the West.

    A senior Foreign Office official said that the terrorists were trawling the world for the materials and know-how to mount an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

    The Baker/SecDef nominee Gates Commission seems primed to tell us that they want to negotiate with Iran and Syria, currently the two leading state sponsors of Islamic terrorism, who in addition to supporting the insurgency in Iraq, are apparently also plotting a coup in Lebanon while rearming Hezbollah and Hamas. This new and as-yet unconfirmed report by the Telegraph now sees Iran trying to further engage al Qaeda to the point of hoping to influence its leadership.

    Iran, a nation ruled by the apocalyptic Hojjatieh sect, is pursuing nuclear weapons, having already developed and/or purchased long-ranged missiles and MIRV warheads only used for delivering nuclear warheads.

    al Qaeda, a major terrorist group that has already successfully struck inside the U.S once and failed on numerous other attempts, has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons since the 1990s. Is anyone on this smug commission watching where this is headed?

    al Qaeda: "Hey, your nuclear weapons development got on my terrorism!"

    Iran: "Your terrorism got on my nuclear weapons development!"

    Both: "DEATH TO AMERICA!"

    It's like a Reese's Peanutbutter Cup from Hell, and the Baker Commission is trying to tell the world that it is safe to swallow.

    Sorry boys, but I'm not buying it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    November 13, 2006

    Sinking The Admiral

    Matt Drudge has a typically bombastic headline running, CHINA SUB STALKS USS KITTY HAWK, which links to a Bill Gertz article in today's Washington Times that is only slightly less dramatic:

    A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.

    The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military.

    The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.

    Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.

    According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.

    The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group's planes.

    The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack.

    According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.

    The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.

    A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident, saying details were classified. Pentagon spokesmen also declined to comment.

    If you're looking for me to debunk this story I'm sorry to disappoint you. I simply can't, other than to quibble over the details.

    A submarine that tops out at 22 knots cannot overtake or as Gertz states, "stalk" a carrier battle group that cruises somewhere between 27-32 knots. What the Chinese can do is plot a course for the battle group, and place a submarine in position in advance of it, and wait for the battle group to steam to that location, as did the German U-boat wolfpacks of World War II.

    The Song was likely vectored into position by PLAN (the People's Liberation Army Navy... I know, don't ask), and waited under minimal electric power until the American battle group closed in on their position. It was an ambush, not a stalking, and considering the stealth of this breed of diesel/electrics, it is possible that if the battle group was unprepared, it could run into such an ambush, despite my earlier thoughts to the contrary left on Hot Air's post on the subject.

    No, the story here is not necessarily the apparent Chinese success in a cat and mouse game that has been playing out between submarines and surface ships for decades, but the fact that this story was leaked to Gertz, and that it was leaked now. Gertz himself provides the reason for the leak:

    The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.

    Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.

    Move over New York Times. The Old Gray Lady may lead in publishing information that hurts U.S. interests, but the Department of Defense has been known to selectively leak on occasion, and this leak seems to have the military exchange program with the Chinese clearly in the crosshairs.

    The exchange program, which dates to 2002 is said to be extremely one-sided. Chinese military officers and technicians have been invited to see U.S. military exercises and "sensitive" facilities, and China has refused to reciprocate. In addition, Admiral Fallon has restricted U.S efforts to conduct intelligence-gathering operations against China, leading us to be even more in the dark than we should be.

    The Song-class submarine may have targeted Admiral Fallon's carrier group, but by leaking the story to Bill Gertz when they did, it is clearly the intention of the Department of Defense to sink Fallon and a program that they consider to be a risk to national security.

    Damn the torpedoes. There's a dangerous admiral to be sunk.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Of Sterner Stuff

    The following letter was emailed to President George W. Bush at the White House this morning, asking him to rededicate America to winning the War on Terror.

    Send your own comments to the President via email comments@whitehouse.gov, over the telephone at 202-456-1111, or via fax at 202-456-2461.

    Dear President Bush,

    "These are the times that try men’s souls."

    So Thomas Paine began a series of pamphlets in late 1776 called The American Crisis, and in which he continued, "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot may, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

    All around you lies a nation demoralized, yet not yet defeated, waiting upon your steadying hand to find a solution to the problems of modern-day Mesopotamia.

    Shia, Sunni, and Kurd slaughter each other along with our soldiers in what seems to be an unending campaign of bloodshed. This war is meant to sap the spirit and soul of not just one country, but legions of the faithful of many languages and creeds, across national and international borders.

    Indeed, many in this land have lost hope in the noble ideas that founded this nation, and now clamor for a retreat to our own shores from those who would strike at us here as they have in the past. These well-meaning but misguided souls seek for no more blood to be spilled, for no more lives to be lost in a brutal, grinding war that sees our national will and our thirst for peace and justice challenged.

    But we are made of sterner stuff, and what they do not understand is what you must know in your heart to be true, and that is simply this; there can be no peace in this war or this world without victory.

    We live in a time where cynicism lords over self-sacrifice, where absent a call to rise above the mundane, the backbenchers and the critics are given voice by the simple absence of dedicated call to duty.

    Early on in this great campaign you spoke to and for all of us when you said, "Great tragedy has come to us, and we are meeting it with the best that is in our country, with courage and concern for others because this is America. This is who we are."

    Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have heard your call, and answered to it magnificently.

    Yet it seems in this dark hour that many Americans have forgotten who we are and what God set us upon this Earth to do. I firmly believe that you, a man of great Christian faith and conviction, were elected not to serve just the United States, but God’s will in spreading to the dark corners of the world both hope and freedom. It is for these two things that American and Iraqi soldiers rise every morning in a struggle that sometimes seems insurmountable, against a foe both wicked and depraved.

    We must succeed, Mr. President.

    It is my heartfelt conviction that God put us upon this Earth to strike out against those who would subjugate, oppress and terrorize those who should be free into an uneasy silence. This silence that will only be broken by further explosions and cries from the wounded and dying if we chose this time and this date to retreat. A retreat from Iraq, however it is phrased, is a victory for the forces of Islamic terrorism.

    We must draw that "line in the sand, " here, and now, from which will not retreat.

    I ask you to do what only you can, and that is to commit American totally to victory in Iraq. History has shown us that wars are not won with half measures, but with an overwhelming commitment of both manpower and conviction.

    I beseech you to commit our reserves to the fight in Iraq, as many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of soldiers that the mission requires, in order to break the will and the bodies of those who fight for chaos and tyranny.

    There have been many who have called Iraq "another Vietnam," but what they do not realize is that Iraq can be a Vietnam for the forces of terrorism for which they cannot withdraw without a resounding defeat. They have committed their all—their ideology, their material, and their manpower—to driving our alliance with the common man and woman in Iraq asunder. We must not fail them, or else, we will fail ourselves.

    Should those who fight for freedom yield to those who fight for chaos, oppression, and tyranny? I say, emphatically, that the answer to all terrorists of every stripe must be "No."

    Mr. President, I ask that you rededicate yourself and our nation to winning the war against terrorism currently being waged in Iraq. We fight not just for their freedoms, but our own.

    Sincerely and Respectfully,

    Bob Owens


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:20 PM | TrackBack

    November 12, 2006

    Gates Nomination a Recipe for Disaster

    Says the American Thinker (via Instapundit):

    The Baker commission seems to be doing a lot more than just re-thinking Iraq. It appears to be copiously leaking a Vietnam-type cut-and-run plan that will leave the Gulf far more dangerous than it is now. The Vietnam model looks like a “face-saving” retreat by the United States—just like that one that left Vietnam a Stalinist prison state with tens of thousands of boat people fleeing and dying, and next door in Cambodia, two or three million dead at the hands of Pol Pot.

    Baker’s press leaks seem designed to test public reaction to the cut-and-run plan.

    President Bush's nominee to replace Don Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates, a survivor of the Iran-Contra scandal who helped draft the Baker cut-and-run strategy.

    Let's be very clear on who Robert Gates is; he is part of the problem, a leftover of the failed policies of realpolitik that helped create modern terrorism. His return to public service is a recipe for losing no just in Iraq, but in the larger War on Terror. He has as much business being Secretary of Defense as Harriet Miers had being on the Supreme Court.

    Norman Podhoretz captured the failures of the Baker/Gates generation quite clearly as they led the run from terrorism in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations:

    In April 1983, Hizbullah—an Islamic terrorist organization nourished by Iran and Syria—sent a suicide bomber to explode his truck in front of the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three employees, among them the Middle East CIA director, were killed and another 120 wounded. But Reagan sat still.

    Six months later, in October 1983, another Hizbullah suicide bomber blew up an American barracks in the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines in their sleep and wounding another 81. This time Reagan signed off on plans for a retaliatory blow, but he then allowed his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, to cancel it (because it might damage our relations with the Arab world, of which Weinberger was always tenderly solicitous). Shortly thereafter, the President pulled the Marines out of Lebanon.

    Having cut and run in Lebanon in October, Reagan again remained passive in December, when the American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Nor did he hit back when, hard upon the withdrawal of the American Marines from Beirut, the CIA station chief there, William Buckley, was kidnapped by Hizbullah and then murdered. Buckley was the fourth American to be kidnapped in Beirut, and many more suffered the same fate between 1982 and 1992 (though not all died or were killed in captivity).

    These kidnappings were apparently what led Reagan, who had sworn that he would never negotiate with terrorists, to make an unacknowledged deal with Iran, involving the trading of arms for hostages. But whereas the Iranians were paid off handsomely in the coin of nearly 1,500 antitank missiles (some of them sent at our request through Israel), all we got in exchange were three American hostages—not to mention the disruptive and damaging Iran-contra scandal.

    In September 1984, six months after the murder of Buckley, the U.S. embassy annex near Beirut was hit by yet another truck bomb (also traced to Hizbullah). Again Reagan sat still.

    What realpolitik accomplished under Reagan was to build the confidence of terrorists. This same "do nothing" approach was continued under the first Bush Administration, thanks once again to political strategies favored both then and now by men like James Baker and Secretary-designate Robert Gates.

    Robert Gates had a hand--never firmly proven, but never really in doubt--in the disasterous plan to attempt to negotiate with terrorism in Iran-Contra.

    He also was part of the brainrust, err, braintrust, that urged Iraqi Shia to rebel again Saddam Hussein, only to stand by and watch when as many as 100,000 Shia were killed when they failed to support the rebellion they instigated in 1991.

    Robert Gates has no business being the Secretary of Defense during a war on terrorism. He did far too much to help create the current problem to be relied upon to fix it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:44 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

    The First (Beheading?) Cut is the Deepest

    The Jawa Report is breaking news:

    The Jawa Report has obtained evidence that Yusuf Islam, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, was once connected to radical clerics Omar Bakri Mohammed & Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. According to at least one credible source, he was also involved in terrorist financing.

    If the Jawas are correct, the hippie that sang "Peace Train" was doing fundraisers for organizations linked to al Qaeda.

    Yusuf Islam is supposed to release another albm this month called "An Other Cup," including a cover of a tune called "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood."

    There's a joke in there somewhere.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Iran Fakes Drone Carrier Footage (Update: Or Not)

    I just saw a short clip on Fox News where the Iranian government showed grainy, near-overhead footage of a U.S. aircraft carrier, and claimed this was evidence that an Iranian drone was able penetrate U.S. fleet radar and air cover, a story also covered by Breitbart.com.

    Um... no.

    Iran actually made this claim once before back in August (in the video clip above), going as far as say that their drone repeatedly circled the USS Ronald Reagan before it was even noticed, and that the U.S. attempted to shoot down the drone, but failed. Iran, or course, had zero evidence to support that claim.

    But the apparent proof that Iran's latest "drone" video is fake may be contained in the footage itself.

    carrier

    The grainy footage shows what is undoubtably the angled deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier, but on that carrier deck are aircraft, including what appears to be a different fighter on the port waist of the deck than the F/A-18s, EA-6s, and E-2Cs one would currently expect on modern U.S. carriers. Could those planes be F-14 Tomcats?

    The Iranian's imply their video was taken during military exercises in the past week. The F-14 Tomcat was retired in February. If Iran means to imply that this video was taken during their war games of the past week and the video released does indeed show retired aircraft, it would suggest that Iran was lying.

    But Iran wouldn't lie, would they?

    Update: Russian news sites are disputing the authenticy of the video.

    They should. Expecting that a drone could penetrate the nine ship-mounted radars of a Nimitz-class supercarrier, plus the AWACS radar on the E-2C Hawkeyes it has aloft at all times, plus AEGIS-equipped ships in the carrier group, plus the radar of aircraft flying close air support, and be able to then circle directly above the carrier at an altitude of at least several thousand feet and return in one piece is something that, quite frankly, only an idiot would believe.

    Mmmmm... Crow: Not F-14s on the port waist, but almost as large F/A-18Cs, ans clearly shown in this much better video. The angled rudders are a dead giveaway. In other words, the video is not necessarily old footage, though whether or not the U.S. knew of the drone is still up in the air.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    November 10, 2006

    Roll-Your-Own Terrorists: Fish and Chips Edition

    The British people may not have any interest in fighting Islamic terrorism, but Islamists certainly have an interest in fighting them:

    British authorities are tracking almost 30 terrorist plots involving 1,600 individuals, the head of Britain's MI5 spy agency said, adding that many of the suspects are homegrown British terrorists plotting homicide attacks.

    In a speech released by her agency Friday, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller said MI5 had foiled five major plots since the July 2005 transit bomb attacks in London.

    Speaking to a small audience of academics in London on Thursday, Manningham-Buller said officials were "aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy."

    "What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten?" she said. "No, nearer 30 that we currently know of."

    She said MI5 and the police were tackling 200 cells involving more than 1,600 individuals who were "actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here and overseas."

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    November 09, 2006

    Responsibilities and Sacrifices

    A powerful sermon on the Iraq War as told through the analogy of a World War II soldier's sacrifice, via Josh Manchester's enlightening post on the sudden multitude of plans for Iraq.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Sins of the Father

    Robert Gates, the nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of State was the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser during the failed 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War that may have led to the mass murder of 100,000 Shiite Iraqis:

    On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.

    But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

    The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.

    In recent years Baghdad has shortchanged the south in the distribution of food and medicine, contributing to severe malnutrition among vulnerable populations. Some 100 Shiite clerics have been murdered, including four senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs, destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest, as well as causing immeasurable ecological damage.

    The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the March uprising could have succeeded, thus avoiding the need for a second costly war.

    The obvious question is, "Did Bob Gates have a hand in shaping Bush's call for rebellion?"

    If so, would he also partially responsible for failing to support the rebellion, leading to one of Saddam's greatest genocides? I do not know the answers to these questions, but they must be asked before he is confirmed as the next U.S. Secretary of Defense.

    While I sincerely hope that the sentiment expressed on Austin Bay's blog that the Gates nomination may political prep for "prosecuting the war even more vociferously," I think that Mr. Gates and the present Bush Administration owe to it to us and the Iraqi people to explain in detail what role, if any, he played in an Administration that instigated, and then failed to support, the 1991 uprisings.

    The administration of Bush '41 failed Iraq once when we cried for them to stand up for their freedom. The same personnel who failed Iraqis in 1991 should not be given the opportunity to do so again.

    Update: It's up behind an annoying subscriber wall, But Allah says that the Wall Street Journal is on the same page.

    One reason the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki has had such a hard time dismantling Shiite militias is because Shiites fear that it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. abandons them again and they will have to confront the Sunni Baathist insurgency on their own. If President Bush wants to reassure Shiites on this score and about Mr. Gates, he should announce that the recent efforts to appease the Sunni terrorist political fronts in Iraq have failed.

    We presume Mr. Gates will be grilled about these and other issues during his confirmation hearings. He should be.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    November 06, 2006

    Talking with the BloodHounds

    Along with a handful of other bloggers, I was given a chance by U.S. Central Command to interview U.S. soldiers currently serving in Baghdad, Iraq, specifically, MPs (military police) from the 615th Military Police Company MSC: 89th MP Bde, also known as the "Bloodhounds."

    I was able to interview SSG Jason Oliver and SPC Kimberly McGuiness.

    Josh Manchester also interviewed SSG Oliver and SPC McGuiness in a podcast at The Adventures of Chester.

    SSG Oliver


    SSG Jason Oliver from Cypress, Illinois, has been in the Army 7 years, and is currently the Team Chief for a Police Transition Team in Baghdad.

    Q: A recent cluster study by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the British medical journal The Lancet states that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion by violent means. While you cannot expect to answer for the rest of the country, does this seem to be a reasonable figure based upon your experience in Baghdad?

    SSG Oliver: It’s a tough question to answer. I only see a small portion of the big picture. As a Team Chief for the Police Transition Team it is something that I see and that I report, but I don’t keep count on everything, just report what I see. I do find it is hard to fathom that there have been that many Iraqis killed since 2003.

    Q: Most media reports coming out of Baghdad paint a picture of a city under siege, with roving Shiite and Sunni death squads operating virtually at will, kidnapping people of the street, summarily executing them, and dumping their bodies in the street. Is this an accurate presentation of life in Baghdad?

    SSG Oliver: First off, I think that siege is not the appropriate word to use. Yes it has a duel meaning, but when I think of a siege, I think back to Medieval Europe with royal courts placing rival castles under siege and cutting off all outside support, lasting from months to years. So is the city under siege, I don’t think it is. Beyond what the media portrays, there is more to this city that the so called “death squads”. You still see a continuous flow of commerce in and out of the city. I know that the locals live in fear and that many have duel identities, but this to the Iraqi people has become a sign of the times. They have learned to adapt to the ever changing political climate and try to live as normal a life as they can. I cannot count the times when my patrol has traveled through the city with the streets full of life, little street side venders selling the newest gadget in the area, bistros busy with hungry locals standing in line to grab the fresh “Falafel or Kebab” and the females musing about in search of the best cut of meat and freshest fruits and vegetables to serve the family. I read an article the other day about an increasing number of tattoo shops in the Baghdad area. In the article it stated that tattoos are forbidden in the Islamic culture, but some people feel that it is one way that, if they should be killed, they will be identified so the proper notification can be made and the family does not have to grieve more that they have to. The people adapt, they know when most bad things are going to happen, and they take precautionary steps to prevent them from being caught up in whatever may happen. As strange as it may sound, I have a lot of respect for a majority of the Iraqi people. While we are here to help control the chaos, they live in it.

    Q: As a follow-up to that question, do you see any signs that the sectarian violence in Iraq may abate any time soon?

    SSG Oliver: I would love to say yes, but it is up to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to come together and end the bloodshed.

    Q: What has been your experience working with the Iraq police units you have been training? Do you find them to be reliable, motivated and properly equipped for their roles?

    SSG Oliver: Good and Bad. All in all, the Iraqi Police try to perform their duties daily, but they do lack things that would make them more effective. Most of the police have minimal training and that is where our job comes into play. The Police Transition Team helps fill the gap by providing training and mentorship to the IP’s to better educate them on the basic police fundamentals. They do, however, need new and better equipment. They use unarmored vehicles to conduct their patrol which puts them at an even higher risk of injury and death. The now this and can sometimes use it to their advantage, but this is not always the case. Overall, the IP’s are as effective as their equipment allows them to be and if they should get the needed equipment, then the IP’s could assume a better role in their respective communities and perform in a more efficient manner.

    Q: Are there any anti-Iraqi forces that seem to be behind the bulk of the attacks that are occurring in your area of operations, and are U.S. and Iraqi forces "on the same page" when it comes to going after those carrying out these attacks?

    SSG Oliver: It has been my experience operating in the city that allows me to say that for the most part, both U.S and Iraqi forces are on the same sheet of music. They do work together well, but the Iraqi Security Forces do have advantages that Coalition Forces do not have. We are bound by our rules and regulations were as the Iraqis have more lenient laws which allow them some better opportunities.

    Q: We have a national election coming up in one week, where it seems that the Democratic Party has a very good chance of capturing the House of Representatives from Republican control. I wrote a post a week ago explaining that if Democrats win control of the House, they might cut off funding for the war. Based upon your own experience in Baghdad, what effect do you think it would have if you and other U.S. forces were summarily pulled out of Iraq?

    SSG Oliver: If your child takes their first steps while holding on to your hands are you just going to let go and hope they continue on their own? No. Most people would continue to support and encourage them until they can continue on their own without support. I feel the same applies here. The Iraqi government is very young and still needs assistance from outside sources so they can develop and grow. The US government has pledged to help build Iraq into a model for the region, and if we were to pull out to early, the Iraqi Government will stumble from its already young state and possibly fall, which would put US forces back into a situation that could possible be worse. We need to stay, maintain and support the Iraqi Government until it can handle all aspects without US assistance.

    Q: This is completely up to you. Please use this opportunity to tell us anything and everything you would like readers to know about your experiences in Iraq. Unlike newspaper journalists, I have virtually unlimited space, so please take as much time to tell us what you think the American people should know.

    SSG Oliver: First, I want to thank everyone that supports our troops. This is by far the most important thing. Second, I wish that people back home could see everything that happens here, not just the gruesome stories of a war torn country. There is so much more to everything that the Coalition is doing in this country that goes unnoticed. Things such as seeing Soldiers interacting with the local children, giving them school supplies, toys and even sharing their candy and whatever other things the Soldiers have. I cannot remember when the press ran a story about U.S Soldiers establishing an aid station out in a community that allowed many Iraqis to receive medical attention that they would have otherwise not received. The media needs to rethink the coverage and produce a balance of both the good and bad, and maybe then the world will not think that this is a completely war ravaged country.

    SPC McGinness

    SPC Kimberly MCGuiness from Fletcher, North Carolina, is a .50-caliber turrent gunner on a Humvee conducting Police Transition Team duties in Baghdad.

    Q: A recent cluster study by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the British medical journal The Lancet states that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion by violent means. While you cannot expect to answer for the rest of the country, does this seem to be a reasonable figure based upon your experience in Baghdad?

    SPC McGuiness: I don't know the answer to that question due to the fact that it is outside of my job to keep track of how many violent deaths there have been. I would say that their have been many but I don't know the exact number.

    Q: Most media reports coming out of Baghdad paint a picture of a city under siege, with roving Shiite and Sunni death squads operating virtually at will, kidnapping people of the street, summarily executing them, and dumping their bodies in the street. Is this an accurate presentation of life in Baghdad?

    SPC McGuiness: There are always two sides to every media report. People hear about the bad things because its news worthy. In my experience, it is true that locals are fearful of being kidnapped and executed but I can't tell you for a fact that it is Shiite vs Sunni. There are violent things that happen but you can't really pin point the source of the problem.

    Q: As a follow-up to that question, do you see any signs that the sectarian violence in Iraq may abate any time soon?

    SPC McGuiness: I can't tell you for sure if it will let up. You have people in this country that want all Shiite governments and those that want the Sunni's in power and you have that divide between the two. If an understanding can be reached then yes but until that divide closes, it could be sometime before the healing and rebuilding can happen.

    Q: What has been your experience working with the Iraq police units you have been training? Do you find them to be reliable, motivated and properly equipped for their roles?

    SPC McGuiness: I feel as if they had better vehicles, better equipment and more armor on their vehicles that they could perform more efficiently. Also they don't get paid that much and for the amount of danger there is out in Baghdad, the pay doesn't seem to quite add up. They are afraid to die just like everyone else and if they were better equipped it might make them more comfortable in their job.

    Q: Are there any anti-Iraqi forces that seem to be behind the bulk of the attacks that are occurring in your area of operations, and are U.S. and Iraqi forces "on the same page" when it comes to going after those carrying out these attacks?

    SPC McGuiness: In my experience, the Iraqi forces and the US forces quite often are on the same page but other times there are things that hinder movement. There are things that the Iraqi forces can do that US forces cannot do and we have to handle situations differently. With the Iraqi forces, Iraq is "their turf" whereas with the U.S we still have soon guidelines and rules that must be followed. There are always going to be some anti-Iraqi forces that think what we are trying to establish is wrong and that take matters into their own hands.

    Q: We have a national election coming up in one week, where it seems that the Democratic Party has a very good chance of capturing the House of Representatives from Republican control. I wrote a post a week ago explaining that if Democrats win control of the House, they might cut off funding for the war. Based upon your own experience in Baghdad, what effect do you think it would have if you and other U.S. forces were summarily pulled out of Iraq?

    SPC McGuiness: In my experience, what we are doing here is working. Rome wasn't built in a day and it is going to take time. If we were to be pulled out of Iraq too soon, we will find ourselves back here down the road trying to undo what we could have fixed if we would have stayed. We are working on training the IP's how to perform their job's better and better ways to do things so they can support themselves and not be afraid to police one another.

    Q: This is completely up to you. Please use this opportunity to tell us anything and everything you would like readers to know about your experiences in Iraq. Unlike newspaper journalists, I have virtually unlimited space, so please take as much time to tell us what you think the American people should know.

    SPC McGuiness: People only see the bad things that happen here. You hardly ever hear about soldiers interacting with the locals and building relationships with the children. Soldiers handing out book bags and school supplies or just a small gesture of giving them candy to show them that we do care and humanize ourselves to them. The future of Iraq is in the people. Yes there are some people that resent the US being here and that will not stop until we leave but there are those that thank us for being here and that they feel safer because we patrol their streets and the crime has been lessened do to our patrols. We are making a difference.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:15 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    November 05, 2006

    On Day of Saddam's Sentencing, Liberals Attack Republicans

    You would think that on the day a brutal murderous dictator like Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity, that everyone but Baathist dead-enders would draw at least some satisfaction from the fact that at long last, the Butcher of Baghdad would pay for his decades of brutality, depravity, and bloodlust.

    You don't know liberals very well, do you?

    Blondesense's reaction was "ho-hum," after which she went on a multi-paragraph tirade blaming the United States in general and Republicans in specific. As always, we are responsible for Saddam's crimes.

    Steve Clemon's at the Washington Note takes the same tack:

    The Bush administration gets credit for taking down Hussein, real and in statue, but they too deserve every bit of the credit for unleashing the virulent currents of sectarian killing and convulsion in Iraq, all of the responsibility for removing the chief constraint on Iran's actions in the region, and all of the kudos for giving radical Islamism reward after reward in the region.

    Saddam Hussein's head will be a prize that Shia extremists thank America for while they continue to do their best to eradicate Sunnis from Iraq.

    Bush deserves all of the credit for the Hussein trial and conviction -- and all of the horrors unleashed around it.

    Nice. Apparently they'd rather have Saddam still in power, because they've convinced themselves that would have saved Iraqi lives.

    Uh, no (via Gateway Pundit).

    Mahablog questions the timing and blames Karl Rove. It's knee-jerk, but instinctive for them at this point.

    Georgia10 at Daily Kos asks, "Do the ends justify the means?" seems quite concerned that Saddam may not have gotten a fair trial, and cries yet again for us to abandon the people of Iraq, which she apparently considers a "blood-soaked path to nowhere."

    It's never to late to blame America. It's never to late too run.

    A "good morning to you" from the American liberal left.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:07 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

    Mission Accomplished: Saddam Sentenced to Death by Hanging

    Via Fox News:

    Saddam Hussein, the iron-fisted dictator who ruled Iraq for nearly a quarter of a century, was found guilty of crimes against humanity Sunday and sentenced to death by hanging.

    The so-called Butcher of Baghdad, who was president of Iraq from 1979 until he was deposed by Coalition forces in April 2003, was convicted of the 1982 killings of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail.

    The visibly shaken former leader shouted "God is great!" as Iraq's High Tribunal announced his sentence.

    Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Ibrahim, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of the former Revolutionary Court, were sentenced to join Saddam on the gallows for the Dujail killings after an unsuccessful assassination attempt during a Saddam visit to the city 35 miles north of Baghdad.

    It seems fitting that an Iraqi gallows and not an American bullet will put an end to the reign of Saddam Hussein. The allied elite forces of Task Force 20 eliminated his sadistic sons, but I think that Iraqis will attain more closure by executing the Butcher of Baghdad themselves.

    Fellow Pajamas Media bloggers Omar and Mohammed Fadhil report from Baghdad:

    I was overwhelmed with joy and relief as I watched the criminals being read their verdicts. For the first time in our region tyrants are being punished for their crimes through a court of law.

    Until this moment and while I’m typing these words I’m still receiving words of congratulations in emails, phone calls and text messages from friends inside and outside the country. These were our only means to share our happiness because of the curfew that limits our movement.

    This is the day for Saddam’s lovers to weep and I expect their shock and grieve to be huge. They had always thought their master was immortal so let them live in their disappointment while we live for our future.

    This is a day not only for Iraqis but a historic day for the whole region; today new basis for dealing between rulers and peoples are found.

    No one is above the law anymore.

    I was particularly pleased by the way Judge Raouf Rasheed handled the session; he was reading the court’s decision and at the same time chastising members of the current government for their misbehavior and threatened to throw them in custody regardless of their ranks!

    We are living a new era where there’s much hope despite the difficulties…our sacrifices have a noble cause, that is to build a new model that obviously terrifies other tyrants.

    AllahPundit notes a post written by Omar Fadhil in 2003 when he spoke with a young doctor who grew up in the town where the crimes took place. I'll suggest you read it, and agree with Allah's conclusion:

    Sic semper tyrannis

    Thus always to tyrants.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:31 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    November 04, 2006

    SRT

    Doug Ross takes a look at some of the documents that the New York Times has authenticated, and a suggests how those revelations should affect your future plans.

    I tend to agree with his conclusion.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    November 03, 2006

    Kerry's "Apology" Was All-Too Insincere

    John Kerry's arrogance knows no bounds.

    kerrysfakeapology

    John Kerry has a 35-year history of slandering American soldiers, and when he disparaged the intelligence of the American military earlier this week, he deserved no benefit of the doubt. He'd referred to them as murderers, rapists, and terrorists too many times before.

    When he swore he would "apologize to no one" for the comments assaulting their intelligence, he obviously meant it.

    Now several days later and a "I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand what I meant to say" non-apology, he still has enough arrogance and contempt for the American soldier to feature on his page the headline, "Kerry's Remark: Right either way."

    As Bryan notes:

    Because even though he has “apologized” several times and in disingenuous ways, at heart he [Kerry] meant what he said. When he finds someone who supports his smear, he links right to them to justify himself. Someone who truly meant to apologize for a remark he doesn’t believe wouldn’t do that.

    John Kerry is not the least bit sorry for slandering America's heroes.

    He wasn't sorry in 1972, and he's certainly not sorry now.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:51 PM | Comments (30) | TrackBack

    NY Times Justifies 2003 Invasion of Iraq

    This is a NY Times November bombshell as designed by the North Koreans.

    The breaking article seems to be an attempt to attack the Bush Administration for releasing potentially classified information (yes, the ironymeter is pegged), but what they actually prove is that Saddam's nuclear weapons program was indeed a significant threat.

    Not only were they close to developing their own nuclear bomb (at one point the Iraqis "were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"), they also had that nucelar weapon building knowledge available to proliferate to other rogue states.

    The Times may have set out to attack Bush, but instead, they have justified the rationale for the 2003 invasion.

    Thanks, Pinch.

    Update: Josh Manchester notes that this article seems to be an attempt by the NY Timesto pull an "Al-Qaqaa" once more before an national election.

    Further Update: As Glenn Reynolds notes:

    Judging from some of the delighted emails I'm getting, I need to warn people not to get too carried away -- this doesn't say that Saddam would have had a bomb in 2004. But it does say that he had all the knowledge needed to have a bomb in short order. And as we know he was looking to reconstitute his program once sanctions were ended -- and that sanctions were breaking down in 2003 -- that's pretty significant. However, perhaps even more significant, given that we knew most of the above already, is that the NYT apparently regards the documents that bloggers have been translating for months as reliable, which means that reports of Iraqi intelligence's relations with Osama bin Laden, and "friendly" Western press agencies, are presumably also reliable.

    And as these documents are "presumably also reliable," then much of the research into these documents done by a former Defense Intelligence Agency contractor by the name of Ray Robinson is certainly worth a second or even a third look. Robinson compiled some of his research for the Fox News Saddam Dossier, and has much more in the archives of his personal site.

    Robinson thinks he may have even triggered this by contacting the IAEA two weeks ago.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack

    Al-Taei Kidnapping Motive: Ransom?

    According to Time:

    A kidnapping ring has demanded a $250,000 ransom from the family of the U.S. soldier abducted in Iraq, a suspiciously low sum that his family worries could be a sign that he is no longer alive.

    The Pentagon Thursday confirmed for the first time that Specialist Ahmed al-Taie, a Michigan National Guardsman assigned to the Provincial Reconstruction Team Baghdad, has been "unaccounted for" since Oct. 23 at 4:30pm; he is currently listed as "duty status whereabouts unknown." Family members of the 41-year-old Iraqi-American from Ann Arbor, Mich. say he was nabbed by a gang claiming to be from the Mahdi Army while he was on an unauthorized trip outside the fortified Green Zone to visit his wife in Baghdad.

    The ransom demand for al-Taie was relayed earlier this week to al-Taie's uncle Entifad Qanbar, a former spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress and recently an official in the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Qanbar described to TIME the complicated negotiations he has been engaged in on behalf of the family and in close coordination with the U.S.-led Hostage Working Group, a task force in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad made up of specialists from multiple U.S. agencies and the military.

    Reading the Time story leave one with the impression that the kidnapping was done purely as a criminal exercise.

    We have the option of accepting that at face value, but kidnapping an American serviceman would seem to be an extremely risky enterprise for a group merely interested in profit. Whereas the kidnapping of Iraqi civilians leads to only an Iraqi police response (if that), the kidnapping of al-Taei led to a massive military-led recovery effort that has at least 3,000 American and Iraqi soldiers conducting area sweeps and house-to-house searches, a response that most criminal kidnappers would understandably shy away from.

    Kidnapping for ransom is a not uncommon practice throughout the developing world, and is increasingly common in regards to the kidnapping of Iraqis for political or criminal means, but it is comparatively rare for foreigners to be kidnapped for ransom, and the al-Taei kidnapping, if a criminal exercise, would be the first kidnapping of an American soldier in an attempt to turn a profit since the war began.

    It simply seems doubtful that an experienced kidnapping gang would take such risks for such a comparatively small reward. Politics, hidden behind a veil of base criminal motivation, still seems to be the most likely reason to kidnap such a high-profile target.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    November 02, 2006

    Negotiations Underway to Release Captured U.S. Army Translator

    As I said in response to Andrew Sullivan's willfully ignorant claim yesterday that "commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia":

    Andrew Sullivan disingenuously misrepresents a small (and increasingly irrelevant) part of the rescue effort as the entire rescue effort, discounting all active military and police searches, intelligence gathering efforts, and back-channel political maneuvering that we know from past experience is certainly taking place.

    This morning, Fox News confirms that the back-channel political maneuvering I discussed is indeed occuring:

    The U.S. military identified a kidnapped soldier for the first time on Thursday, saying the abducted Iraqi-American was 41-year-old Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie.

    Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell also said that the reserve soldier was visiting his Iraqi wife when he was handcuffed and taken away by gunmen during a visit to the woman's family.

    Caldwell said there was "an ongoing dialogue" in a bid to win the soldier's release, but he would not say with whom or at what level.

    The fact that al-Taei (or as this article spells it "al-Taayie") did not turn up dead within the first 72 hours of his abduction, and the fact that he is believed to have been captured by the Mahdi Army instead of al Qaeda, leads me to believe that he was abducted not to become a victim of torture and murder, but to become a political pawn for one of the factions of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia.

    What remains to be seen, and what we may never know, is whether al-Taei's capture is something that al-Sadr had a hand in, or if a faction within his loosely-organized Mahdi Army Militia conducted the kidnapping independently. If al-Taei's abduction was not conducted with al-Sadr's knowledge or blessing, there is the possibility that the kidnapping is evidence of a rift between factions of the Mahdi Army.

    If so (and this is purely speculation), it could be that factions within the Mahdi Army are using the kidnapping to make a run on al-Sadr's control of the militia. The kidnapping places a microscope on al-Sadr (note the renewed calls to have him killed, which stem at least in part from the kidnapping), and depending on internal Iraqi politics, could rattle his standing with both other Mahdi Army factions and with the Iraqi government, which for now, seems to be doing the bidding of al-Sadr (on that, at least, Sullivan was correct).

    If al-Sadr starts to lose (more) control of the Madhi Army, his importance to and influence within the Iraqi government may wane, and the possibility that Ralph Peters may eventually get his wish, perhaps courtesy of the apparently fragmenting Mahdi Army itself.

    Update: Josh Manchester has further thoughts.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    November 01, 2006

    PowerPointless

    A clandestine program to track terrorist communications into the United States splashes across the pages of the New York Times, and the government does nothing in response. A top secret program is leaked in the same paper revealing how terrorist funding is monitored, and again, the leaker goes free.

    Today, the leak of a minor but still classified report, including a PowerPoint slide, has the Pentagon wanting to drop the hammer:

    The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges.

    A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18, adding that an effort is underway to find out who leaked the chart and if the breach of operational security constitutes a crime.

    The published report includes a classified one-page slide show from an Oct. 18 military briefing. The slide show is titled: "Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict," and shows spiraling violence in Iraq and a worsening position for American efforts.

    Based on the slide show, Iraq is moving sharply away from "peace," designated in green on the left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the red-zoned right side of the spectrum, marked "chaos."

    News flash to the Pentagon: This is kinda like letting someone break into your house, steal your valuables and rough up your family, only to get pissed off when they trample on the grass while leaving.

    If the government wants to start nailing those who leak classified information during a time of war, they should start with the most important cases, not much less important ones such as this.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:42 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    Sullivan's Dim Bulb Flickers Once More

    As seems to be his pattern lately, Andrew Sullivan suckles onto one fact and uses it to fatten up a dishonest charge he cannot support:

    While the media is obsessed parsing the ad libs of someone on no ballot this fall, something truly ominous has just happened in Iraq. The commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia. Yes, there are nuances here, and the NYT fleshes out the story today. But the essential fact is clear.

    What Andrew Sullivan obtusely states as "fact" is nothing of the sort.

    U.S. forces withdrew from checkpoints around the Sadr City slum at Prime Minster Maliki's request, but it is quite a leap to suggest that by turning over checkpoints to the Iraqi Army, that efforts to secure the release of captured U.S Army translator Ahmed Qusai al-Taei have been abandoned.

    Does Sullivan honestly believe, and does he even have the basis to believe, that the cordons around Sadr City were the only measure being taken to secure al-Taei's release? If so, Sullivan betrays a stupefying naiveté. More likely, however, he just abandoned any pretense of honesty in favor of a cheap partisan shot that suits his increasingly fractured and incoherent ideology.

    I'll state in advance that I do not know specifically what U.S. and Iraqi military, police and political forces are doing to retrieve al-Taei (nor would I reveal the details if I knew them), but what I can state with a fair degree of certainty is that those who kidnapped him at gunpoint:

    • had planned the kidnapping in advance
    • had a pre-planned and nearby location where they would take al-Taei, in what they consider a safe and sympathetic area from which they are very unlikely to move

    It is almost certain that al-Taei was already in this pre-planned containment area before a cordon was ever established. They are now even less likely to move him because of the much greater risk of exposure that any move would entail.

    We also know that a passive cordon would only be part of an overall plan to rescue this missing soldier, based upon all-too recent experience.

    When Pfcs. Menchacha and Tucker were kidnapped by al Qaeda in June, more than 8,000 soldiers from the U.S. and Iraqi armies participated in the search. We know that forces have actively searched for al-Taei by foot and air, and that there is no sign that the active searches, those that are most likely to be effective at this late stage of the kidnapping, have abated in the least.

    Sullivan, of course, does not mention this, perhaps purposefully.

    He wouldn’t want to ruin his pre-determined narrative:

    The U.S. military does not have a tradition of abandoning its own soldiers to foreign militias, or of taking orders from foreign governments. No commander-in-chief who actually walks the walk, rather than swaggering the swagger, would acquiesce to such a thing. The soldier appears to be of Iraqi descent who is married to an Iraqi woman. Who authorized abandoning him to the enemy? Who is really giving the orders to the U.S. military in Iraq? These are real questions about honor and sacrifice and a war that is now careening out of any control. They are not phony questions drummed up by a partisan media machine to appeal to emotions to maintain power.

    Actually, these are "phony questions drummed up by a partisan media machine," and, that machine is an intellectual Trabant at that.

    Andrew Sullivan disingenuously misrepresents a small (and increasingly irrelevant) part of the rescue effort as the entire rescue effort, discounting all active military and police searches, intelligence gathering efforts, and back-channel political maneuvering that we know from past experience is certainly taking place.

    I don’t expect Sullivan to be nonpartisan or ideologically neutral, but a do expect him to approach the subject with at least a hint of intellectual honesty that he has not thus far shown.

    11-02-06 Update: Fox News confirms this morning that the back channel negotiations I mentioned above are indeed occuring. More here.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:55 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    October 30, 2006

    Zawahiri Targeted

    That is what A.J. Strata, AllahPundit, Bill Roggio and others are thinking today in response to reports that Pakistani military forces killed 80 suspected al Qaeda militants with a strike led by Pakistani helicopter gunships using "precision weapons," Among the confirmed dead so far is radical cleric Maulana Liaqat, who led the al Qaeda-affiliated school.

    Roggio suspects that the attack may not have been carried out by Pakistani forces, but instead an combined forces hunter/killer team currently named Task Force 145.

    In previous incarnations, this team hunted and killed Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq as TF 626, hunted and coordinated the capture of Saddam Hussein as TF121, and hunted down and killing Saddam's son's Uday and Qusay as TF20.

    Whatever the group is called, it is thought to be composed of the most elite American and British Special Forces units from all branches of service, including elements of Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, SAS and SFSG commandos, and US Army, USAF, and RAF special operations air units.

    Brian Ross is stating that the attack came from Predator drones.

    Zawahiri was targeted and almost killed in a Predator strike under similar circumstances back in January.

    Update: The operation appears to be completely Pakistani in execution, as eyewitnesses identified three Pakistani helicopters as having fired upon the Taliban and al Qaeda affiliated madrassa. What is interesting is that the locals have displayed just 20 bodies of the 80 thought to have been killed, even though there is comparatively little rubble remaining to hide bodies according to the few pictures taken from the scene.

    We know from previous attacks in the area that the Taliban and al Qaeda forces are quick to claim their bodies for the rubble of such strikes if at all possible, and so the discrepancy between the number claimed killed and those recovered may be an inadverdant indicator of how many militants were indeed killed.

    Update: An al Qaeda leader that survived the strike confirmed that the madrassa was used to train militants.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Missing U.S. Soldier Snatched By al Sadr's Mahdi Army

    The American translator kidnapped last week has been identified, and it appears that he broke Army regulations by marrying an Iraqi civilian:

    A U.S. Army translator missing after being kidnapped in Iraq had broken military rules to marry an Iraqi woman and was visiting her when he was abducted, according to people who claim to be relatives of the wife.

    According to a report in Monday editions of The New York Times, the relatives said that the soldier, previously unidentified by the U.S. government, is Ahmed Qusai al-Taei, a 41-year-old Iraqi-American. The family did not know he was a soldier until after the kidnapping, the relatives said.

    Taei married a 26-year-old college student, Israa Abdul-Satar, three months ago, the family said. They showed visitors photographs of the couple's wedding and honeymoon, the newspaper reported.

    The relatives said members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia came to the wife's home on Oct. 23 and dragged Taei into their car.

    It should be pointed out that the situation al-Taei put himself in is one of the reasons why the military discourages soldiers from marrying into the local population, as it places both the soldier and the family at risk for reprisal attacks.

    If al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is indeed behind the kidnapping, the situation has the potential for causing significant a significant political rift, as it may force a more aggressive targeting of the Shiite militia that has formed part of the base of support for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    October 29, 2006

    French Bus Torched by Undescribables

    And the Anonymous War continues:

    Teenagers set a bus ablaze in Marseilles, France, seriously burning a female passenger and sending three others to the hospital for smoke inhalation.

    The group reportedly forced the vehicle's doors opened and threw a flammable liquid into the bus before fleeing, the BBC said Sunday.

    Authorities reported several recent bus attacks, coinciding with the one-year anniversary of riots in poor suburbs across France. The deaths of two teens in Paris sparked the riots.

    In Paris, about 500 people marched in memory of the two teenage boys who died in 2005. The deaths of the two, both from immigrant families, and suggestions they were fleeing from police touched off weeks of suburban clashes, the BBC said.

    During last year's riots, authorities said more than 10,000 cars were set on fire and 300 buildings were firebombed, the BBC said.

    It's too bad no one can seem to get a description of the people carrying out these attacks. Apparently, France is being overrun by vague, featureless teenagers.

    Oh, the horror...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:25 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    October 25, 2006

    New War Spin: Fighting Makes Army Unsuited For Combat

    Baltimore Sun reporter David Wood makes that claim citing the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, in an oddly-titled article, "Warfare skills eroding as Army fights insurgents":

    Pressed by the demands of fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army has been unable to maintain proficiency in the kind of high-intensity mechanized warfare that toppled Saddam Hussein and would be needed again if the Army were called on to fight in Korea or in other future crises, senior officers acknowledge.

    Soldiers once skilled at fighting in tanks and armored vehicles have spent three years carrying out street patrols, police duty and raids on suspected insurgent safe houses. Officers who were experienced at maneuvering dozens of tanks and coordinating high-speed maneuvers with artillery, attack helicopters and strike fighters now run human intelligence networks, negotiate with clan elders and oversee Iraqi police training and neighborhood trash pickup.

    The Army's senior leaders say there is scant time to train troops in high-intensity skills and to practice large-scale mechanized maneuvers when combat brigades return home. With barely 12 months between deployments, there is hardly enough time to fix damaged gear and train new soldiers in counterinsurgency operations. Some units have the time to train but find their tanks are either still in Iraq or in repair depots.

    The Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, recently told reporters that there is growing concern that the Army's skills are eroding and that if the war in Iraq continues at current levels, the United States could eventually have "an army that can only fight a counterinsurgency." Cody is broadly responsible for manning, equipping and training the force.

    While General Cody is a career military officer and I am but a humble civilian blogger, I beg to differ with his analysis. Put simply, it seems doubtful that large U.S. mechanized units will every again square off against comparable units in large scale, high-intensity maneuver warfare, if that is indeed the assertion he was trying to make.

    Advances in imagery and signals intelligence makes it doubtful that an opposing Army could assemble a large mechanized force without U.S. commanders learning of its location, at which point other intelligence gathering assets would be able to determine the force make-up and develop precise targeting coordinates. At this point, Air Force, Navy, and Marine strike fighters and bombers, along with cruise missiles and long-range artillery assets such as the MLRS and ER-MLRS can repeatedly engage opposing force armor concentrations at a range of hundreds of miles. Once closer, any surviving units can be engaged with close air support by Army and Marine attack helicopters and conventional artillery assets, in addition to on-going attacks from Air Force and Navy strike fighters and bombers. By the time American armor closes to within their several-mile striking distance, the bulk of enemy forces will likely be destroyed, at which point the job for American armored forces will likely be identifying and destroying surviving remaining enemy armored forces that are significantly degraded and largely immobilized.

    Likewise, if General Cody does not see large armor-versus armor conflicts on the horizon, the practical experience gained over the past three years in urban street fighting probably makes our soldiers better prepared for future conflicts. The kind of overwhelming short range fire-support and long range "sniping" against fixed position targets that Neil Prakash wrote about in his now-defunct milblog Armor Geddon seems to be the future of heavy armored units in heavily integrated combined arms warfare.

    General Casey may indeed have a point if we once again face an opposing force that can deny us the air superiority needed to make a combined arms battlespace its most effective, but as our most pressing projected opponents—Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, according to the article—do not have that capability, his concerns seem to me to be the complaints of the kind of stereotypical general wedded to past tactics, guilty of always fighting the past war.

    Note: John Donovan tells me via email that he might address the Sun article in more detail later today at Castle Argghhh!

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:52 PM | Comments (31) | TrackBack

    October 24, 2006

    Coincidences

    Okay, I'll confess my ignorance and ask the question:

    pali

    Has anyone else ever seen an African-Palestinian terrorist before?

    There is the possibility that the gunman pictured is just a very dark-skinned Arab, or that the color balance was incorrect in this photo. Indeed, another photo of what appears to be the same individual at the same location does apparently show somewhat lighter skin. But with the population of Gaza being 99.4% Arab Palestinian and the remaining 0.6% being Jewish, the question is obvious:

    Who is that masked man?

    Do we now have photo evidence that Palestianians are importing terrorists from North African terrorist groups? And would that perhaps explain why the Associated Press photographer who shot this photo was kidnapped just hours after this picture was published?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:49 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    Abandon All Hope

    darfurchild

    This child was weak—perhaps injured or dying—as this photo was taken in the Darfur region of Sudan in 2004. He may already be dead. One thing is certain; the future of millions of children throughout the Middle East just like him will be affected by you very soon.

    As you read this, Darfar is a largely abandoned genocide. Supported by the Sudanese government, Arab janjaweed militias are exterminating Africans of the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups. Estimates of the number of dead vary, and millions are thought to be displaced. We know that children and babies are among the targets of the janjaweed attacks, and that dismemberment is a not uncommon tactic. We also know that the violence in Darfur is projected to worsen throughout the rest of the year.

    If current U.S. political trends hold, Iraq may become another Darfur, and Darfur well may be on its way to becoming another Rwanda.

    As Victor David Hansen notes of unexpected outcomes today:

    Where does all this lead? Not where most expect. The Left thinks that the “fiasco” in Iraq will bring a repudiation of George Bush, and lead to its return to power. Perhaps. But more likely it will bring a return of realpolitik to American foreign policy, in which no action abroad is allowable (so much for the liberals’ project of saving Darfur), and our diplomacy is predicated only on stability abroad. The idealism of trying to birth consensual government will be discredited; but with its demise also ends any attention to Arab moderates, who whined for years about our support for the House of Saud, Pakistani generals, Gulf autocrats, or our neglect of the mayhem wrought by Islamists in Afghanistan. We know now that when the United States tries to spend blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq that it will be slandered as naïve or imperialistic.

    Every major Democratic candidate in this fall’s congressional race—save one principled independent Democrat in Connecticut—is pushing for the United States to withdraw from Iraq. Some moderate Republicans are taking this tack as well. They claim that they want U.S. forces out of Iraq because our continued presence there only invites attacks against American soldiers, saps the national treasury, weakens our ability to respond to other threats such as Iran and North Korea, and weakens our image in the international community.

    All of these points have some merit.

    U.S. soldiers would be far safer if redeployed to Okinawa. There are no insurgents, no sectarian militias, and no roving bands of al Qaeda terrorists there.

    The War in Iraq is indeed expensive, costing over 336 billion dollars and growing according to one anti-war web site.

    Having such a large commitment of soldiers currently in, returning from, or preparing to go to Iraq certainly absorbs a significant portion of our current military strength, though it barely occupies our force projection from the Navy and Air Force to any extent.

    And let us not forget that our international image is indeed tarnished, particularly among those nations of the world community run by strongmen, despots, and dictators that would see a weaker and more isolationist United States as a benefit for their own foreign policy desires.

    But what no candidate in favor of withdrawal wants to address is what will happen to the Iraqi people if anti-war candidates do take control of Congress and attempt to live up to their campaign promises.

    Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and other leading Democrats have already made their intentions abundantly clear:

    Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction. "I can’t stop this war, " a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.

    But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, "You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?"

    Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues – especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.

    Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

    "Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,] " said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
    Woolsey is among the Democrats in Congress who are hoping to control the power of the purse in 2007 to force an end to the war. Woolsey and some of her colleagues note that Congress helped force the end of Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.

    If Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, they will cut funding to the war effort. What they will not publicly admit is that the nearly immediate precipitous withdrawal that that would force will almost certainly destroy any hopes of Iraq being able to develop a representative form of government.

    An impending, unimpeded civil war dwarfing the current level of sectarian violence will quite probably lead to genocide in Iraq, and yet, politicians in the House would not likely respond by reinserting U.S forces to help halt the violence. To do so would be to admit that they were wrong to force such an abrupt withdrawal.

    Looking Out
    Photo of an Iraqi family near the Iranian border courtesy of Michael Yon.

    The price of such short-sighted political miscalculations will be paid for with the blood of Iraqi, men, women, and children. They do not want an even wider civil war, but lack any authority or capability to stop it on their own. No one can predict just how bad the violence would become, but anyone addressing the situation honestly must acknowledge that the number of those killed, injured and displaced will be far greater than the already unacceptable casualties thus far.

    The Democratic Party’s intention is not genocide in Iraq, but if they come to power in Congress, that is almost assuredly what they will cause. Their much-discussed and on-going drive for isolationism is precursor to mass murder.

    And yet, Iraqi civilians will not be the only victims of a Democratic Congress. A Democratic House that refuses to allow American forces the opportunity to attempt to stabilize a situation we created will have no political capital to intwt in interceding in other conflicts where we have even less direct interests.

    As Hanson notes in his article linked above, no action abroad will be permissible if we withdraw from Iraq. There can be no intervention to stop the genocide in Darfur. There can be no intervention in any other "hot spots" that may develop around the world ,because a Democratic Congress that abandoned Iraq will have committed itself to a policy of non-intervention worldwide.

    It is well within the realm of possibility that American voters will determine with their votes on November 7 whether or not we will see this mistake of inaction repeated in other nations in the Middle East and Africa in coming years.

    The cost in blood and treasure of the current "Republican" war may yet pale in comparison to the human suffering imposed by a pending Democratic "peace."

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:44 AM | Comments (35) | TrackBack

    October 23, 2006

    U.S. Soldier Missing in Baghdad

    Breaking on al-Reuters:

    A U.S. soldier was reported missing in Baghdad on Monday, the military said.

    The soldier, part of a multi-national division in the Iraqi capital, went missing at about 7:30 p.m. local time, the U.S. military said in a statement.

    "Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces immediately responded to attempt to locate the soldier, the search is ongoing," the statement said.

    The limited information coming out thus far does not indicate the circumstances under which the soldier went missing. In June, two soldiers were captured, tortured and eventually beheaded after a larger force was drawn away and their isolated position was overrun.

    It has not been confirmed that this soldier was indeed captured, but that is of course the fear.

    More as this develops.

    Update: Fox News television mentioned the story briefly. The soldier, a translator, was kidnapped. The kidnapping was reported by an Iraqi civilian who witnessed it..

    As expected, the bottomfeeders at the Democratic Underground are already insisting that any impending torture is, of course, President Bush's fault for signing the Military Commissions Act nine days ago.

    Never miss a chance, kids, no matter how petty.

    Update: This may be something:

    An employee at Baghdad's al-Furat TV, which was raided by American forces earlier Monday, said the U.S. forces conducting the search told him they were looking for an abducted American officer of Iraqi descent.

    The employee said U.S. soldiers and Mouwafak al-Rubaie, the government's national security adviser who went to the station during the raid, told him the missing officer had left to join family members in Baghdad's Karadah district.

    The officer's wife, also an Iraqi-American, was reportedly in the capital visiting family, according to the reports passed on by the al-Furat employee.

    Having relatives in the combat zone means that this particular soldier had a great degree of potential exposure. I hope that whoever kidnapped the missing soldier did not use his family members or his spouse as bait leading to his capture.

    Update: Snatched on the way to his family? that is what I take away from this line:

    American troops who raided Baghdad's al-Furat TV on Monday said they were looking for an abducted American officer of Iraqi descent who had gone to join family members in Karradah.

    This is starting to sound like this specific officer may have been targeted, bring about the possibility that whoever took him is looking for intelligence, not just a random soldier to torture for propaganda purposes ahead of the election.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    When Narrative is More Important than Reality

    Pat Tillman, a former NFL safety with the Arizona Cardinals, quit the NFL in May of 2002 and joined the Army eight months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. He enlisted along with his brother Kevin Tillman, who gave up his own chance to play professional baseball. Both brothers excelled in the Army and were assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, and saw duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat Tillman was killed by "friendly fire" in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004.

    I thank the Tillmans for their service in the American military. They both gave up potential fame and fortune to serve our country, something that is increasingly rare among celebrities of this age. They put America first, and their own dreams and ambitions second. I was touched by their personal sacrifice, and felt sorrow when I learned that Pat Tillman had given his life for his nation.

    Kevin Tillman has since left the U.S. Military, and on October 19, published an article remembering his brother and condemning U.S foreign policy towards combating terrorism.

    When you read his article you can feel the frustration and anger Kevin Tillman feels, no doubt due to his own experiences as a soldier and as someone who has experienced direct personal loss as result of the War on Terror. That does not excuse him, however, from using his position of what Maureen Dowd called "absolute moral authority" when applying it to Cindy Sheehan, to spread unsupported hyperbole, innuendo, and half-truths.

    Tillman repeats common canards of the anti-war left, but his own military service does not make for him an unassailable shield, nor does restating them make these tired conventions any more true. Saddam Hussein's Iraq did, without any doubt at all, harbor terrorists. We know the most famous of them by name, including Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. They all killed Americans, and they all lived as Saddam's guests. Yasin was the man who built the 1993 World Trade Center bomb laced with sodium cyanide, the first and so far only attempted chemical weapons attack on American civilians.

    Only those on the anti-war left ever (purposefully) misstated that Iraq was involved with the terrorist attacks of September 11, and only the anti-war left ever stated that Saddam's Iraq received uranium from Niger. The Bush Adminstration did not hold those positions. An honest accounting would show that the United States invaded Iraq not because of any involvement with September 11, but because September 11 made us realize how much of a threat Saddam's Iraq could be. Saddam's Iraq were behind previous terror attacks against U. S. targets, and retained the know-how to reconstitute both biological and chemical weapons programs.

    Tillman's diatribe is dramatized hyperbole, and some of his commentary is purposefully erroneous and obtuse.

    His statement that the suspension of habeus corpus has even occurred is an outright falsehood; no foreign soldier in any war in this nation’s history has ever had habeus corpus rights, and no American civilian is threatened by the Military Commissions Act, which applies only to "alien unlawful enemy combatants"... foreign terrorists.

    And yet, Kevin Tillman does provide one unassailable truth in his diatribe, when he stated that, "Somehow a narrative is more important than reality."

    His narrative—devoid of concrete facts, long on assertion, hyperbole, and emotional appeal—is just that kind of narrative.

    Kevin Tillman purposefully misstates why we went to war in Iraq, even conflating the insurgency and the current sectarian violence as a reason for invasion, and he fundamentally misunderstands—or perhaps avoids—recognizing the essential fact that al Qaeda and terrorist-supporting states such as Syria and Iran have decided to make Iraq the central front in the War on Terror.

    Like it or not, Iraq is where the terrorsits are, partially due to our actions, but also due to the emphasis terrorists and their supporters have poured into winning in Iraq.

    This leftist anti-war narrative relies on the misguided belief that if we withdraw from Iraq, that somehow, terrorists would cease trying to attack and kill American civilians. That misguided position of disengagement should have died when we were attacked on September 11, 2001, long before we ever invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Islamic terrorists have stated time and again the intention to come after us, no matter what we do, and our past withdrawals have only served to embolden them.

    It's too bad Kevin Tillman couldn't work that one over-arching and essential fact into his narrative.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:19 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

    October 20, 2006

    Just Another Day in Tehran

    Lovely:

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday called Israel's leaders a "group of terrorists" and threatened any country that supports the Jewish state.

    "You imposed a group of terrorists ... on the region," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S. and its allies. "It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

    "Nations will take revenge," he told a crowd of thousands gathered at a pro-Palestinian rally in the capital Tehran.

    Ahmadinejad said Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon disappear.

    "This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its existence," he said.

    "Efforts to stabilize this fake (Israeli) regime, by the grace of God, have completely failed... You should believe that this regime is disappearing," he said.

    What Ahmadinejad's thinly-veiled threat failed to mention is that his apocalyptic Hojjatieh sect quite likely has the intention of "helping" Israel out of existence once Iran has both nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them.

    The implicit threats of this particular exchange, which CNN provides coverage of in greater depth, are directed at Europe:

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Europe that it may pay a heavy price for its support of Israel.

    "You should believe that this regime (Israel) cannot last and has no more benefit to you. What benefit have you got in supporting this regime, except the hatred of the nations?" he said in nationally broadcast speech Friday.

    "We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbors of the nations in this region," he said.

    "We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

    I wonder how much longer the pint-sized Holocaust denier will continue to issue threats against the world community without any measurable response from those countries he has threatened to put in the crosshairs.

    Time and again, Ahmadinejad says Iran only wants to continue its nuclear program for peaceful means, only to quickly reissue threats that most understand to be links to implied of attacks by MIRV-equipped ICBMs.

    I won't be shocked to find that the world will only recognize the threat that Ahmadinejad's Hojjatieh sect brings to hundreds of thousand if not millions of lives as they attempt to bring forth the Hidden Imam. I suspect it will only be after Iran's missiles are launched, and by then it will be far too late.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    What's Amarah Wit You?

    A developing story in Iraq is the seizure of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah today by roughly 800 militiamen of Muqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army in response to the kidnapping of the teenage brother of the local head of the a-Madhi Army. the kidnapping came on the heels of the assassination of the head of police intelligence in the area, who belonged to another Shiite militia, the Badr Brigade. The Associated Press is among many of the news organizations covering the story.

    The takeover of Amarah is just the latest example of intra-sectarian fighting in Iraq that shows that the current U.S. strategy in Iraq is not working. As a recently-back-from-Iraq Phillip Carter noted yesterday:

    During the last two years, the U.S. presence in Iraq has consolidated in massive superfortresses like Anaconda and shut down dozens of smaller bases and outposts across the country. This operational withdrawal was meant to make the U.S. presence more efficient and to reduce the risk of having small units deployed on small bases where they might be vulnerable to insurgent attack; it also forced the Iraqis to become more self-sufficient in securing their own cities. Unfortunately, this has come at a price. When a massive flare-up happens in places like Balad, Tikrit, or Kirkuk, all cities without a permanent U.S. presence, our military must respond from afar, its effectiveness and responsiveness limited by distance.

    * * *

    This violent weekend proves that America needs to radically change its course in Iraq, while some form of victory still lies within our grasp. First, the U.S. military must reverse its trend of consolidation and redeploy its forces into Iraq's cities. Efficiency and force protection cannot define our military footprint in Iraq; if those are our goals, we may as well bring our troops home today. Instead, we must assume risk by pushing U.S. forces out into small patrol bases in the middle of Iraq's cities where they are able to work closely with Iraqi leaders and own the streets. Counterinsurgency requires engagement. The most effective U.S. efforts thus far in Iraq have been those that followed this maxim, like the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar, which established numerous bases within the city and attacked the insurgency from within with a mix of political, economic, and military action.

    I hope that the current situation spurs military leaders in Iraq towards to solution that Carter rightly advocates, starting with a direct confrontation of the 800 al-Mahdi militiamen that have taken over Amarah.

    Logistically, it isn't possible for just 800 unsupported militia fighters to establish and maintain the "total control"(as the media so breathlessly puts it) of a city as large as Amarah, which has an estimated population of 340,000 spread across the geographical boundaries formed by the fork of three rivers.

    amarah

    A more detailed satellite map from GlobalSecurity.org can be seen here.

    Based upon map data alone, this would be an extremely difficult city for a much larger, better equipped and better trained conventional military force to hold, much less a militia. It seems that geography could be used to section off parts of the city, which could then be cleared of militiamen in the following manner.

    Conventional military units could be used to set-up checkpoints in blockading positions around the roads leading into Amrah, while small special operations units from the Iraqi military and supported by U.S. intelligence and strike aircraft should be able to locate and observe concentrations of militiamen (untrained forces have a tendency to cluster) and inflict significant casualties with precision weapons. Militiamen patrolling the city in vehicles would seem to be prime targets for hit-and-run ambushes, which could be assembled on the fly with intelligence from overhead U.S. drone aircraft.

    There is no need to engage these militia forces in a frontal assault with conventional forces that would lead to significant damage to the civilian infrastructure when precise intelligence, coordinated small arms and the use of smaller precision airborne munitions could achieve the same objectives.

    If such a plan is able to be implemented, the militiamen would be forced to surrender, attempt to escape, or die as they move around the city. Once sufficiently weakened, conventional Iraqi Army and Police forces should be able to mop-up any remaining forces and reestablish control.

    American and Iraqi military and police forces must rein in militias, reestablish localized bases across Iraq to better provide stability and quick response capabilities, and work to bring economic and political force to bear to make lasting changes on a local level.

    I'm not sure if we need "more boots on the ground" to stabilize Iraq, but I am quite certain that we cannot improve the situation by isolating our forces in large bases and letting militias and sectarian gangs run free.

    "All politics is local," said someone very wise. So are insurgencies, which cannot be defeated from the PX of a large megabase.

    Update: Bill Roggio has related thoughts on dealing with Mahdi Army leader Muqtada al-Sadr.

    Update: The Iraqi Army came in with two companies of soldiers from Basra, and have retaken the city. The threat of going up against a large conventional Army force was apparently enough for the militiamen.

    As a side note, Wikipedia (where I got my population number from) claims Amarah's population as being 340,000 in 2002. Lexicorient.com places the city's population at 420,000 as of 2005. The AP article from today states that the population is 750,000.

    I think we just found the missing people from the Lancet study.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    October 18, 2006

    Johns Hopkins/Lancet Study Demolished

    Via Bryan at Hot Air, the politically-timed Johns Hopkins/Lancet study stating that more than 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the Iraq War has had its very suspect methodology thoroughly crushed:

    After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.

    The group--associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health--employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.

    However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

    Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

    Since the beginning, Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study has mantained that the study is methodologically sound.

    Uh, not quite:

    Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are.

    Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.

    When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.

    With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.

    Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

    And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

    Reviews of the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study casts strong doubts upon the credibility of the methodology used. When compared to other studies, I’d venture to say that the Johns Hopkins study is worthless and irreproducible, perhaps purposefully so. The timing of the report, once again issued in the weeks preceding a national election, casts strong doubts upon the intentions, credibility, and integrity of the researchers.

    Then again, their campaign contributions and affiliations should have tipped you to their biases long ago.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:07 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

    October 17, 2006

    No. Korea: ''A Declaration of War''

    Captain Poofy is starting to sound like a great proponent of regime change, primarily his own:

    Blaming the United States for instigating U.N. Security Council sanctions against it, North Korea on Tuesday called the resolution approved over the weekend a "declaration of war."

    North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency that the country wants "peace but is not afraid of war."

    The North "vehemently denounces the resolution, a product of the U.S. hostile policy toward (the North) and totally refutes it," the statement said, according to a report from The Associated Press.

    North Korea's statement followed U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calling the U.N. resolution a "clear message" that Pyongyang must "make a new set of calculations" about its nuclear endeavors.

    "North Korea cannot endanger the world and then expect other nations to conduct business as usual in arms or missile parts," Rice told reporters on Monday. "It cannot destabilize the international system and then expect to exploit elaborate financial networks built for peaceful commerce."

    As some have mentioned previously, the nuclear gambit is North Korea's last straw. They have nothing else with which to threaten the world. Their nuclear threats fall short with missiles that won't fly and nuclear weapons that won't detonate, and their massive conventional army is decades obsolete. All the have left is their arms business, and the U.N. blockade is taking that away.

    At the current rate of escalation, I would not be all that surprised to find North Korea may very well be considering a disasterous invasion of South Korea if a pending second nuke test fails. They had so little to begin with, that they have almost nothing else to lose.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:19 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    October 16, 2006

    Left-Wing Lawyer to be Sentenced For Aiding Terrorism

    Lynne Stewart, the radical liberal lawyer convicted of providing material support for terrorism, faces being sentenced for up to 30 years today. Her defense team's strategy?

    She and her allies are pinning their hopes for leniency on a strategy that argues she became so emotionally involved in the sheik's case that she acted irrationally — a strategy that is underpinned by a sealed letter to the court from a psychiatrist.

    A psychiatric report submitted to the federal judge in Manhattan who will decide the sentence, John Koeltl, claims that several emotional events in Stewart's life suggest her actions were motivated by "human factors of her client and his situation" and not by politics, according to portions of the psychiatric report.

    The psychiatrist, Steven Teich, points to 11 emotional events that he claims prompted her to want to take action on Abdel Rahman's behalf, Stewart's attorneys say. Among the events that make Dr.Teich's list are her experiences seeing Abdel Rahman incarcerated and the 1995 suicide of a drug defendant named Dominick Maldonado, whom Stewart had once represented.

    "Ms. Stewart's commitment to the protection of her client, the Sheik, in prison was magnified by emotions from her perceived failure to protect her former client Mr. Maldonado, which had, consequently, resulted in his death by suicide," Mr. Teich wrote.

    While the evaluation by Dr. Teich is filed under seal, Stewart's attorneys quote portions of it at length in public legal papers.

    Stewart's behavior was "emotionally based and sometimes impulsive" and her mental state while representing Abdel Rahman "immobilized her critical ability to evaluate the potential consequences of her actions," according to the psychiatric report.

    In other words, they are claiming that Stewart became a traitor to her country because she let her perceived failures and emotions get the better of her, not because she was inherently or willfully disloyal.

    support_troops

    Somehow, that defense sounds familiar... where have I heard it before?

    This "emotionally-based and sometimes impulsive" behavior did not start in 2000 or in September 11, 2001, in October of 2001, or March of 2003. It is instead a inherent structural flaw in a group of people going back decades.

    Once upon a time liberals were classic liberals, pulling for individual rights, equal opportunity, freedom, and peace. I didn't agree with the methods they espoused towards realizing their ideals, but I could at least respect their ideals, if not their plans for implementation.

    Somewhere, however, liberals began to lose their liberalism and thirst for universal freedoms. As Dr. Sanity noted, they traded their ideals for ideology, and have now reached a point where:

    ...every issue supported by the Left, and almost all of the behavior exhibited by the Left is completely antithetical to classical liberal philosophies. There is no longer a commitment to personal liberty or to freedom. The Left is far too busy to promote freedom for the common man or woman, because their time is taken up advocating freedom for tyrants who oppress the common man; terrorists who kill the common man; and religious fanatics who subjugate the common woman.

    The intellectuals who once promoted the IDEA of freedom, now are ensnared in an IDEOLOGY that depends for its very existence on the silencing of speech; the suppression of ideas; and the persecution of those who dare to refute its tenets.

    Patriotism and love of one’s country is mocked by those who once fought to bring the American Dream to all American citizens; and who once championed those who were prevented from sharing in that Dream. Slowly and inexorably those idealists who once shouted, “we shall overcome,” morphed into a toxic culture promoting a never-ending victimhood that cannot possibly be overcome. Love of American ideals and values was transformed into the most perverse and vile anti-Americanism –where all things originating or “tainted” as American are uniquely bad; and where America became the source of all evil in the world.

    This is the worldview that seems to have ensnared Lynne Stewart, and forms the basis for her defense as she is about to be sentenced for aiding and abetting terrorism. "I didn't mean to become a traitor," seems to be her cry, "my emotions made me do it." It seems beyond her that emotions led her to support those who would take away everything that she professed to support in a lifetime of liberal activism.

    Liberals are not liberal anymore, and have not been for decades.

    Many no longer even choose to identify themselves as such, perhaps subconsciously acknowledging that as they brand themselves as "progressives," without even realizing what they are progressing towards; Statism, the destruction of free speech, the crushing of dissent, the willful abandonment of a platform that once declared all should have equal rights to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Their new platform is something else entirely.

    Progressives don’t want peace; they just don't support our going to war.

    They push to surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan—or as the style it, "redeploy"—because they claim that the cost of American lives is too high. The are ashamed to address what occurred when they were able to convince us to withdraw from Somalia and Vietnam. They perhaps saved tens of thousands of American soldier's lives by forcing politically-motivated withdrawals, but at what cost?

    Millions died in Southeast Asia as a result of a successful anti-war movement in the United States forcing us to retreat, and the Murtha-led retreat from Somalia inspired Osama bin Laden to the African embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and eventually 9/11/01.

    Progressives still claim to support individual freedoms and feminism and equality, but shamefully propose to abandon two fledgling nations struggling to find democracy to Islamists that subjugate people for being of a different ethnic group, or religion, or race, or gender.

    How is this surrender to oppression in any way in confluence with the classical concept of liberalism? Put bluntly, it is not.

    Liberalism, or at least those who today claim to be liberal and progressive, has become the refuge of back-biting isolationists that long ago gave up any pretense of finding freedom and equality concepts worth fighting for in favor of a morally bankrupt ideology blindly seeking power and relevance at any cost. Once more, those that claim to be liberals urge us to turn our backs on the ideals that made American great.

    Justice. Honor. Freedom. Equality.

    These noble concepts are snorted at with derision by an American Left today that in no way shares the ideals of those who came before. No one truly interested in human rights and justice and equality could abandon Iraq to insurgent Islamists and elements of al Qaeda advocating sharia law, nor abandoning Afghanistan to a brutal Taliban that subjugates women and murders homosexuals and others who deemed unworthy under brutal and primitive Sharia law. These "liberals" would condemn more than 50 million people to oppression because the price we've paid thus far is too much for their tender sensibilities.

    Lynne Stewart braces for sentencing today as one liberal that long ago abandoned her stated principles in favor of an ideology most un-American. Thousands more just like her view her impending incarceration as a travesty of justice, without understanding that it is instead their beliefs that run counter to every ideal this nation holds dear. Ironically, they think they are the voices of freedom and reason.

    Freedom is not earned by submission. Cowardice does not buy liberty. Retreat does not win equality.

    Somehow, so called liberals lost sight of those basic facts long ago.

    Update: I said "cowardice does not buy liberty"... but convicted felon and liberal moneyman George Soros came damn close. Soros funded a significant portion of Stewart's legal defense.

    Stewart was sentenced today to to a whopping 28 months in prison. Her paralegal Ahmed Sattar got 24 years for conspiracy to kidnap and kill those in a foreign country.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

    October 13, 2006

    Guards: I Can't Gitmo Satisfaction

    If some of the stories told to Sgt. Heather Cerveny by guards at Guantanamo Bay are true, I hope the offenders are appropriately punished, but parts of Cerveny’s affidavit are simply sad:

    During my conversations with these people, one Sailor who called himself Bo (rank and last name unknown) told the group stories involving detainees. Bo was 19 years old and had been working at Guantanamo Bay for almost one year. He was about 5”10” and 180 pounds. He was Caucasian, with blond hair and blue eyes. Bo told the other guards and me about him beating different detainees being help in the prison. One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the head and hitting the detainee’s head into the cell door. Bo said that his actions wee known to others. I asked him if he had been charged with an offense for beating and abusing this detainee. He told me nothing happened to him. He received neither nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. And he never even received formal counseling. He was eventually moved to the maintenance section but this did not occur until some time after the incident where he slammed the detainee’s head into the cell door.

    Detainee abuse is a bad thing, but Sgt. Heather’s apparent incredulity that Bo didn’t even get counseling makes me either want to laugh or cry… I haven’t decided which yet.

    It is worth noting that this and all the other admissions came as a lonely, undoubtedly horny sailors were trying to impress a girl in a bar. Pardon me if I hold out hope that his apparent attempt to be “bar tough” is just one more lie to join the hundreds of millions told in a fruitless attempt to impress women.

    What Sgt. Heather also seems to consider abuse outside of several claims of hitting detainees, however, is well, questionable.

    I recall speaking with a guard named Steven. Steven was a Caucasian male, about 5”8”, 170 pounds, with brown hair and brown eyes. He stated that he used to work in Camp 5 but he now works in Camp 6. He works on one of the “blocks” as a guard. He told me that even when a detainee is being good, they will take his personal items away. He said that they do this to anger the detainees so that they can punish them when they object or complain. I asked Steven why he treats detainees this way. He said it is because he hates the detainees and that they are bad people. And he stated that he doesn’t like having to take care of them or be nice to them. Steven also added that his “only job was to keep the detainees alive.” I understood this to mean that as long as the detainees were kept alive, he didn’t care what happened to them.

    I bet Sgt. Heather is probably a very nice person, kind to old people and animals, and is probably just the girl you’d like to take home to meet dear old Mom and Dad, but would someone please explain to her what holy Hell these people are in prison for?

    They are Islamic terrorists who want nothing more than to see Americans dead. These same inmates have a long record of flinging various bodily liquids at guards, assaulting them with homemade weapons, and generally not being nice people. God forbid that Steven doesn’t like them and occasionally confiscates the personal effects from an inmate that once forced him to remove a uniform covered in , urine, feces, spit, or semen, or who once tried to cut him with a shiv.

    And God forbid, she’s upset that they might not be getting their mail in a timely manner:

    I asked Shawn why it often takes 6 months of so for them to get their mail. Shawn replied that there is often a delay because the mailroom personnel have to look through everything and get it translated prior to the mail being forwarded to detainees. I then asked why it would possibly still take six months if the mail matter was printed in English. Shawn said there wouldn’t really be a reason and it was not uncommon for them to withhold the mail of detainees until they, the mailroom clerks, decided to forward the mail.

    Prisoner abuse—hitting and punching them without prevarication or just cause—is patently wrong. But Sgt. Heather seems to be under the delusion that Marines and sailors have a duty to be nice and go out of their way to provide prompt, courteous, and friendly service to terrorists, as if Guantanamo Bay was a resort. Someone needs to write this little Marine paralegal a reality check.

    Of course, Brian Ross sees this as a major scandal. I guess Foleygate must not be having the desired effect.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:47 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    Number Crunched

    Thank you, Asymmetrical Information commenter Yancey Ward:

    If there have been 650,000 excess deaths, and my understanding is that violence is the predominate cause of this excess, then I wonder about the ratio of wounded to dead. From my reading of history, in war there is about a 3 to 1 or greater ratio of wounded to dead in combat. If we take the study seriously, then we should also have well over 1.5 million wounded. Has anyone checked this out?

    According to the Lancet’s disputed study, 601,027 people—al Qaeda terrorists, insurgents, Iraqi soldiers, police, and true civilians—have been killed violently ("the most common cause being gunfire," says the summary) since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    We also know that for every combat-related death, there are usually a far greater number of casualties. As Donald Sensing notes in a 2004 post to his blog, the United States sustained a ratio of wounded to killed of 2.3:1 in World War II, 3.28:1 in Vietnam, and 9.5:1 in the current Iraq war (a more current Newsday article from last week puts that figure at roughly 8:1).

    The numbers look the way they do largely because of the advances made in medical and defensive technologies since the World War II and Vietnam era. U.S. soldiers that sustain wounds today will often survive what would have been killing wounds of 40 to 60 years ago, and they often won't sustain wounds where they might have in prior wars because of advances in vehicle and personnel armor.

    Iraqi civilians do not wear body armor and as a rule neither do most insurgents or al Qaeda terrorists (though there are exceptions to that rule as well). Many Iraqi police and Army units do have body armor, as well as some lightly armored vehicles. While it is a simple SWAG, it would probably not be unreasonable to suspect that medical technologies available to the average Iraqi are probably not any worse than what our soldiers faced in World War Two, and may be better and approaching or exceeding Vietnam-era levels in some urban areas.

    It is far from valid science (I, at least, admit it), but one might assume that a wounded to killed ratios of all Iraqis probably fits within the 2.3:1 and 3.28:1 figures of these prior wars, and a slightly higher number afforded by modern medical methods used in Iraqi civilian hospitals.

    If we can therefore make that assumption (and I'm not entirely sure that we can, but I'm going to in an endeavor to prove a point) that the Lancet accurately states that 601,027 Iraqis have been killed violently since 2003, then there would logically be a minimum of 1,382,363-1,971,369 Iraqis wounded by violence (using the WWII and Vietnam ratios). If the ratio of wounded surviving is better than that, then there should be in excess of 2 million wounded Iraqis in addition to those killed by violence, or a grand total of 1,983,390-2,572,396 Iraqi civilians that have either killed or wounded since 2003.

    The CIA World Factbook estimates the population of Iraq at 26,783,383 as of July.

    Does the Lancet really want to stand behind a study that seems to suggest almost a tenth of Iraq's population has been killed or wounded in the past 3 years, and the world somehow overlooked it?

    Funny think, statistics.

    Update: In a post titled, Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates, the staff of IraqBodyCount.org accuses the Lancet of over-inflating the civilian body count in Iraq.

    Interestingly enough, IBC asked where the wounded are, how the media could have overlooked such carnage, how the Iraqi government could have participated in such a cover-up, and where the death certificates are.

    If those questions sound familiar, it's because you've been reading this blog.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:58 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

    October 12, 2006

    Confirming or Debunking the Lancet Study with One Simple Question

    The controversial and disputed Johns Hopkins study published (free reg required) in the Lancet today claims an additional 654,965 deaths as the result of the Iraq War since 2003, 610,000 of those deaths as a result of violence. It also claims they were able to verify that 92% of those 629 claimed killed in their survey had valid death certificates.

    Using the research of the John Hopkins study, the Iraqi Ministry of Health should be able to therefore produce roughly 602,568 total death certificates (654,965 x 92%), and 561,200 (610,000 x 92%) of these death certificates should by attributed to violent deaths, if they do in fact collect such information nationally.

    If they have far, far less death certificates on file, then the Lancet study will have invalidated itself using it's own methodology, would it not?

    I'll also be very interested to find out whether or not Gilbert Burnham of John Hopkins or the editors of the Lancet made any attempt to check their figures against any available compilations of the number of death certificates issued in Iraq as a check on their research. Iraqi morgues regularly and independently released their own figures until September, when the Iraqi government took over that responsibility, which was after the data in the study was compiled by June of 2006.

    Other Estimates
    Not surprisingly the study figures--far beyond every other survey done by orders of magnitude--are widely discounted by most, and run contrary to every previous attempt to estimate casualties.

    Iraq Body Count, a well-respected site that tracks the number of casualties in Iraq based upon media reports, lists the maximum number of casualties to date at 48,693.

    The Brookings Institute reports (PDF) their estimate, based upon IBC and United Nations Cumulative data until August 31, 2006, to be a slightly higher figure of 62,000 civilian deaths due to violence. Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said of the Lancet numbers:

    "I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off," he said.

    A June 25, 2006 Los Angeles Times report comes up with another set of figures:

    The Times attempted to reach a comprehensive figure by obtaining statistics from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry and checking those numbers against a sampling of local health departments for possible undercounts.

    The Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate. Relatives claim the body directly from the hospital and arrange for a speedy burial in keeping with Muslim beliefs.

    If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate.

    Health Ministry officials said that because death certificates are issued and counted separately, the two data sets are not overlapping.

    The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137.

    Obviously, the Johns Hopkins study figures published in today’s Lancet are far higher than any previous estimates. It will be quite interesting to see if these figures—already dismissed by every world leader and military leader commenting on it so far—can indeed be defended.

    As Bryan notes at Hot Air:

    The Lancet study would have us believe that 2.5% of Iraq has been killed by the war in the past three years. It would have us believe that more Iraqis have died as a result of a mid-sized insurgency than Americans died in World War II. Or the Civil War. Or Germans, who died in World War II, fighting against the combined might of the USSR, the British Empire and the United States, at a time when Germany was reduced to conscripting young boys and old men to resist those armies as they approached Berlin.

    This study, in other words, is nonsense on stilts.

    Of course it is, but it will be most entertaining if we can debunk them using their own informaiton against them.

    Update: A word on public health methodology from a medical professional at Jane Galt:

    And sorry, but the defense that it's as soundly designed as can be expected for these kinds of public health surveys is a weak one. Retrospective, interview-based studies like this are poor designs. It may be the standard way of gathering data in the public health field, but that doesn't make it the best methodology, and it certainly doesn't make its statistics sound. For too long the field of public health has relied on these types of shotty shoddy numbers to influence public policy, whether it's the number of people who die from second hand smoke or the number who die from eating the wrong kinds of cooking oils.

    The same blog post notes that Lancet-published studies of the past have been throughly debunked for shoddy research.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:25 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    October 11, 2006

    Small Plane Hits NYC Skyscraper

    I hope this is just an accident:

    The aircraft struck the 20th floor of a building on East 72nd Street, said Fire Department spokeswoman Emily Rahimi. Witnesses said the crash caused a loud noise, and burning and falling debris was seen. Flames were seen shooting out of the windows.

    "There's huge pieces of debris falling," said one witness who refused to give her full name. "There's so much falling now, I've got to get away."

    The article goes on to say that this is a 50 story building, meaning that 30 stories of the building is above the site of the strike, which would likely make it difficult for people to escape through the elevators. The relatively low strike and small size of the plane might make a rooftop helicopter evacuation plausible, but I just don't have enough details to know.

    planecrash

    It is too early to know how bad the fire may be or what the proximate cause was at this point. More as this develops...

    Update From Allah's description, it does indeed sound like an accident and it appears that the NYFD will bring this under control, if they haven't already.

    Update: NY Yankee's pitcher Cory Lidle and an instructor pilot were killed in the crash.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    October 10, 2006

    Confirmed: Blast ''Non-nuclear''

    How do I know?

    'cause Michael Yon told me so.

    This of course, means my "Divine Strake" guestimate of earlier this week was correct.

    Yeah, even a blind hog can find an acorn every once in a while...

    Update: Mary Katharine Ham and Allahpundit have more.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    North Korean Seppuku?

    Can someone please tell me when the firing of an ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead was not universally recognized as an act of war?

    North Korea stepped up its threats aimed at Washington, saying it could fire a nuclear[sic] nuclear-tipped missile unless the United States acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang, the Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday from Beijing.

    Even if Pyongyang is confirmed to have nuclear weapons, experts say it's unlikely the North has a bomb design small and light enough to be mounted atop a missile. Their long-range missile capability also remains in question, after a test rocket in July apparently fizzled out shortly after takeoff.

    "We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," Yonhap quoted an unidentified North Korean official as saying. "That depends on how the U.S. will act."

    The official said the nuclear test was "an expression of our intention to face the United States across the negotiating table," reported Yonhap, which didn't say how or where it contacted the official, or why no name was given.

    More after I have a chance to think about what this means...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:23 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    NorK Dork Corked

    And Bill Gertz agrees with that initial speculation, just 24 short hours later:

    U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday.

    U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.

    "We're still evaluating the data, and as more data comes in, we hope to develop a clearer picture," said one official familiar with intelligence reports.

    "There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives."

    It still remains, of course, to see if this assessment is correct. It could have been a faulty nuke, after all.

    As ever, the sleepless Allah is on the case.

    Update: Related thoughts at AoC.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    October 09, 2006

    NoDong, Little Action

    north korean nuke goes bust
    Even as North Korea came under international condemnation today after boasting that it had tested a nuclear device, there were serious doubts about the strength of the weapon.

    We have assessed that the explosion in North Korea was a sub-kiloton explosion,” said the intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. He added, “We don’t know, in fact, whether it was a nuclear explosion.” He spoke as intelligence analysts in Washington were in the early stages of assessing the explosion.

    New York Times

    Note: PhotoShop Jihad on the NorKs.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Did North Korea Call or Bluff?

    I speculated last night that the North Korean nuclear test could possibly be "spoofed" by North Korea detonating a massive conventional explosive instead, just as the United States had planned with an operation called "Divine Strake" that was scheduled to take place in Nevada earlier this year using a massive ammonium nitrate bomb of 770 tons (Divine Strake was postponed, but may be rescheduled for 2007).

    Some are stating that the seismic data is showing that the yield is even lower than that planned for Divine Strake, around 550 tons. This can be interpreted a couple of different ways, providing that the actual yield was in the range of 550 tons.

    (1) The North Korean nuclear test was a fake. North Korea was hoping to get by on a bluff using a massive conventional explosion, hoping that it would be close enough to make the world think they had detonated the real thing.

    (2) The North Korean nuclear test was a dud. Several experts are stating the possibility that the North Koreans detonated a shoddily built nuclear warhead that was more or less a dud, not achieving even a twentieth of the power one should expect from a plutonium warhead detonation.

    And then there is the seismic data.

    This is the seismic wave of a blast in North Korea that corresponds with the time that North Korea claims to have conducted their test, as currently shown on CNN.com.

    nork

    I'm no seismic expert by any measure and would never claim to be, but does this data look similar to the seismic data of the confirmed simultaneous Indian nuclear tests of May 11, 1998, and a nearby earthquake that I culled from a Lawrence Livermore Web page?

    indaiantest

    The confirmed Indian nuclear tests show a massive initial spike, then much less intense aftershocks tapering off relatively quickly when compared to an earthquake. The north Korean blast seems to have ramped up before spiking and settling back down.

    To my untrained eye, it appears that the North Korean test didn't act in the same way that the Indian detonation did, going from normal seismic activity to a massive spike before receding. It appears to have ramped up at first, then spiked, then tapered off.

    I don't know if experts can easily determine the difference between a fizzled nuclear blast and a conventional detonation for the simple reason that I don't understand the physics involved. I would think, however, that even a partial nuclear dud would not "ramp up" as the North Korean test did, but just go off with much less of a "pop."

    I'll turn this back over to the experts, but for now, the more I see, the more I question just how successful this test was. I don't know if it was a fake or a dud, but it certainly doesn't appear to be what we expected from a competently constructed modern nuclear warhead.

    Updates: they are coming fast and furious, so hang on.

    Josh Manchester, who I just met in person this past weekend and found to be very impressive, has a couple of posts I consider must-reads. Allah has compiled continuing breaking news from the beginning of this story on Hot Air. Start here and continue on here. Glenn Reynolds is of course providing roundups and passing out Instalanches here and here. Pajamas Media has an on-going thread here.

    Mary Katherine Ham started off here last night and continues on today. No word yet on whether or not she's wearing the hated orange yet.

    Wizbang has a roundup going as does another new friend, Sister Toldjah.

    Expect information overload. I'm sure more is on the way.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:45 AM | Comments (24) | TrackBack

    North Korea Detonates Nuke, Enters Refractory Period

    Developing:

    North Korea said Monday it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapons test, which would confirm that the country has a working atomic bomb as it has long claimed.

    The country's official Korean Central News Agency said the underground test was performed successfully "with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 percent," and that no radioactive material leaked from that test site.

    "It marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the (Korean People's Army) and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defense capability," KCNA said. "It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it."

    I suspect that we'll find out that this was a real test of a small nuclear warhead, but I would not be surprised in the least to find out that this was a large conventional blast like we had planned earlier this year in Nevada in an operation named "Divine Strake."

    Time will tell, but I think North Korea miscalculated. They don' t seem to have any other threats to issue now that they've test-fired both missiles and warheads in the past year. They've essentially fired out with everything they have, and I don't see that they have anything with which to negotiate now.

    Bad dictator. Dumb move.

    Update: MKH and Allah are all over this. Back to my sick bed I go...

    Update: Josh Manchester has a must-read analysis of the situation in his TCS Daily article, "Stalking the Hermit."

    Update: Captain Ed ain't buying it. Not yet, anyway.

    Update: Pushing their luck: Norks say they might test another. This could escalate quickly, both diplomatically and perhaps even militarily. Stay tuned...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    October 04, 2006

    A War on Terror Over

    Terrorism ending not with a bang, but a whimper:

    The Irish Republican Army has begun reducing its membership and shut down key units responsible for weapons-making, arms smuggling and training, an expert panel reported Wednesday in findings designed to spur a revival of Catholic-Protestant cooperation in Northern Ireland.

    The British and Irish governments warmly welcomed the 60-page assessment of the Independent Monitoring Commission, a four-man panel that includes former directors of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the anti-terrorist unit of Scotland Yard.

    The assessment reported that the IRA — which last year declared a formal end to its campaign to overthrow Northern Ireland by force and handed its weapons stockpiles to disarmament chiefs — had recently shut down three command units and "run down its terrorist capability.''
    The report said the IRA has disbanded military structures, including the departments responsible for weapons procurement, engineering and training, and it had cut back rank-and-file members and stopped payments to them, the report said.

    "We do not believe that PIRA is now engaged in terrorism," it added, using the group's full formal name of Provisional IRA. "We do not believe that PIRA is undertaking terrorist-type training. We do not believe that PIRA has been recruiting. ... The leadership is seeking to reduce the size of the organization. We have no evidence of targeting, procurement or engineering activity.''

    The commission said the leadership of the IRA does not consider a return to terrorism as in any way a viable option and it continues to direct its members not to engage in criminal activity.

    The Provisional IRA, (PIRA or "Provos") first emerged in 1969 to end Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom and force a united socialist Irish state through terrorist attacks. "The Troubles" lasted from the late 1960s until the late 1990s.

    After 30 years of war, and an occasionally broken cease-fire measured in years, the Provos turned in their weaponry—thousands of small arms, grenades, some heavy machine guns and even surface-to-air missiles—in 2005. A year later, comand and control elements are slowly dismantling and recruitment has stopped.

    The Provos called it the "Long War," and convincing arguments can be made that this was a sectarian conflict, or even a civil war.

    The PIRA and other nationalist groups were only willing to negotiate a political settlement once they determined after decades of low-intensity warfare that loyalists and the British Army were not leaving. They finally accepted the inevitable, that they could not beat an indigenous government supported by its own military and police forces and strong external interests acting on the government's behalf.

    Somehow, this all seems vaguely reassuring.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:54 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    October 03, 2006

    Khomeini Letter Mentioned Call For Nuclear Weapons Deployment against Iraq

    I'm sure Ted Koppel will tell us this was taken out of context:

    Former Iranian president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has published a confidential letter by the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which has stirred a great deal of controversy in Iran, in part because the letter refers to a military commander's call to pursue nuclear weapons to be deployed against Iran's hostile neighbor, Iraq.

    The letter's significance, and the critical timing of its disclosure, cannot be overstated. Until now, there had been no official voices in favor of nuclear proliferation and plenty of opposite declarations
    led by Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has issued a religious decree, a fatwa, against it.

    In his letter to political leaders, dated 1988, Khomeini does not make any judgment on the commander's position, which he mentions in passing in a narrative devoted to explaining the underlying reasons for his fateful decision to accept a United Nations resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War. These were the government's financial inability to persecute the war, failures in the battlefield, Saddam Hussein's backing by the United States, the increasing Americanization of the war, etc.

    Khomeini's letter sets out the requirements of military commanders if they are to continue fighting against Iraq. It mentions more aircraft, helicopters, men and weapons, and also quotes the top commander saying that Iran would - within five years - need laser-guided and atomic weapons if it were to win the war.

    I'm just thankful that Iranian's current leaders are past that militant desire.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    September 29, 2006

    You Don't Say

    Via Breitbart:

    Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the Al-Qaeda number two, in a video posted on the Internet reportedly called US President George W Bush a liar who had "failed in his war against Al-Qaeda." The Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite station Al-Jazeera said that in the video, "Zawahiri called Bush a liar and said he had failed in his war against Al-Qaeda."

    On Thursday, Islamist websites on the Internet had said there would be a new video message posted by Zawahiri entitled " Bush, the pope, Darfur and the Crusades."

    The comments, made in a video filmed under generator power deep in a guano-covered cave, were deemed to be authentic.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:18 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    September 28, 2006

    Off Yonder Rocker

    I used to enjoy reading Dean Esmay's blog from time to time, and I can't remember when or why I stopped dropping by. Maybe it was becuase of rants like this.

    Quite simply, the attack Esmay levels against Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, and Little Green Footballs is not based in any reality I'm familiar with. All three of these blogs do frequently comment on Islamic terrorism, but they also highlight reform-minded moderate Muslims as well. To state, as Dean has, that these blogs are anti-Muslim is quite simply a falsehood.

    I don't know if Esmay is pruposefully lying for some reason, or if he has simply gotten so wrapped up in his interpretation of what he thinks people say that he can't tell what they actually say. In any event, his factless rant and his outbursts of of overwrought emotional violence against his commentors is quite sad. It's rare to see a blogger so publicly implode.

    All three blog's Esmay attacked have posted rebuttals.

    Michelle Malkin

    Hot Air

    Little Green Footballs

    I hope Dean enjoys the burst of traffic. Odds are that once the dust settles, he will have lost both respect and readers.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:13 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

    An Unlikely Alliance

    I wonder what the rest of the Arab world must make of this:

    Earlier this week, Israeli press reports suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met recently with a senior official in the Saudi government, maybe even with the Saudi king.

    Olmert denied the reports but praised the Saudis for standing up against Hizballah in recent weeks. The Saudi government also dismissed reports of the meeting as a "fabrication." But other media reports persisted in suggesting that some contacts between Israeli and Saudi officials had taken place.

    Whether or not the contacts took place, Saudi Arabia and Israel undoubtedly have a mutual interest -- Iran, said Dr. Guy Bechor from the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.

    Saudi Arabia, a majority Sunni Muslim country, is concerned about the strengthening of ties between Shi'ite Muslims in Iran and Iraq and with Hizballah in Lebanon, said Bechor.

    Iran has so far resisted international pressure to suspend its nuclear program, which Western states believe is intended to produce atomic weapons -- something that Iran denies.

    "[The Saudis fear that] if there is some type of attack against Iran from the West, Iran will hit Saudi Arabia," said Bechor in a telephone interview.

    Saudi Arabia is looking for friends and connections in the region and is working to create a Sunni alliance together with Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, and that anti-terror alliance could secretly include Israel, said Bechor.

    The world seems to think that only the United States and Israel are likely to forcefully oppose Iran's apparent desire for nuclear weapons, but if the Saudi government forms ties with Israel over their joint concerns about Iranian intentions, then the dynamics we assumed about the pending conflict have the possibility to radically change.

    The hope is that political pressure can be brought to bear to convince Iran that an attempt to develop nuclear weapons is not in their best interests. If a political settlement is unreachable, the shift them focuses to when Iran may face military action, and by whom.

    Today Israel reiterated a position held by U.S. President George W. Bush that Iran would not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and if Saudi Arabia can be counted upon for either passive or active support in military operations, the likelihood of political and military success in the wake of a pre-emptive strike increases dramatically.

    If Saudi Arabia offers "passive" military aide by allowing Israeli strike aircraft to fly through and refuel in Saudi airspace, it would greatly reduce the amount of time IAF strike fights would have to spend in hostile air space, and enable Israeli aircraft to carry more munitions deeper into Iranian territory.

    If Saudi Arabia offers active military assistance, particularly air power, then the situation could arise where a joint mission flown by the two most advanced air forces in the Middle East could put hundreds of strike aircraft over Iran, conceivably wrecking much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure without any direct involvement by American military forces at all. It is also worth mentioning that a joint strike conducted by regional powers instead of Western militaries, it would also be far more successful politically.

    It seems unlikely that such a joint mission, or a multi-nation alliance mission is in the works, but the possibility will greatly complicate Iranian plans.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:29 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    September 27, 2006

    al Qaeda Letter Apparently Disputes NIE

    A letter (PDF) found in the rubble of the safehouse in which al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed seems to dispute some of the dire conclusions reached in the leaked excerpts of the National Intelligence Estimate as published by the New York Times and Washington Post last week.

    The captured letter sheds new light on the friction between al-Qa`ida's senior leadership and al-Qa`ida's commanders in Iraq over the appropriate use of violence. The identity of the letter's author, “`Atiyah,†is unknown, but based on the contents of the letter he seems to be a highly placed al-Qa`ida leader who fought in Algeria in the early 1990s. `Atiyah's letter echoes many of the themes found in the October 2005 letter written to Zarqawi by al-Qa`ida's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri; indeed, it goes so far as to explicitly confirm the authenticity of that earlier letter. `Atiyah's admonitions in this letter, like those of Zawahiri in his letter to Zarqawi, also dovetail with other publicly available texts by al-Qa`ida strategists.

    Although `Atiyah praises Zarqawi's military success against coalition forces in Iraq, he is most concerned with Zarqawi's failure to understand al-Qa`ida's broader strategic objective: attracting mass support among the wider Sunni Muslim community. `Atiyah reminds Zarqawi that military actions must be subservient to al-Qa`ida's long-term political goals. Zarqawi's use of violence against popular Sunni leaders, according to `Atiyah, is undermining al-Qa`ida's ability to win the “hearts of the people.†2

    According to `Atiyah, Zarqawi's widening scope of operations, culminating with the November 2005 hotel bombings in Amman, Jordan, has alienated fellow Sunnis and reduced support for the global al-Qa`ida movement. In this vein, `Atiyah instructs Zarqawi to avoid killing popular Iraqi Sunni leaders because such actions alienate the very populations that al-Qa`ida seeks to attract to its cause.3 `Atiyah also encourages Zarqawi to forge strategic relationships with moderate Sunnis, particularly tribal and religious leaders, even if these leaders do not accept Zarqawi's religious positions.

    `Atiyah instructs Zarqawi to follow orders from Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri on major strategic issues, such as initiating a war against Shiites; undertaking large-scale operations; or operating outside of Iraq. `Atiyah goes on to criticize Zarqawi's board of advisors in Iraq for their lack of adequate political and religious expertise, and he warns Zarqawi against the sin of arrogance. Because al-Qa`ida is in what `Atiyah calls a “stage of weakness,†`Atiyah urges Zarqawi to seek counsel from wiser men in Iraq— implying that there might be someone more qualified than Zarqawi to command al-Qa`ida operations in Iraq.

    `Atiyah closes with a request that Zarqawi send a messenger to “Waziristan†(likely, Waziristan, Pakistan) in order to establish a reliable line of communication with Bin Laden and Zawahiri. `Atiyah confirms in the letter that al-Qa`ida's overall communications network has been severely disrupted and complains specifically that sending communications to Zarqawi from outside of Iraq remains difficult. Interestingly, he explains how Zarqawi might use jihadi discussion forums to communicate with al-Qa`ida leadership in Waziristan.

    According to this captured document:

    • Zarqawi had failed to understand and execute al Qaeda's broader strategic objectives, and instead had alienated fellow Sunnis from al Qaeda, reducing their support of the terror organization.
    • Zarqawi group did not have "adequate political and religious expertise" and was "in a stage of weakness."
    • al Qaeda's communications lines have been severely disrupted.

    The al Qaeda letter shows a terrorist group that does not seem to feel it is winning. This seems to be very much in contrast to the version of events as published in the Post's article, where it is claimed that "the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position."

    Note that the Post article does not seem to cast a critical eye toward this NIE, even though in the same article, it points out that all of the conclusion in the 2002 NIE "turned out to be false."

    I suppose it is possible that both al Qaeda and the United States could be facing concurrent setbacks, but it appears to me that our leader isn't hiding in a mountain cave, nor in any immediate threat of being killed by a missile-equipped drone high overhead.

    If I am to believe either document, I think the captured al Qaeda document shows the true situation on the ground far more accurately, as bad as that may be for the media and Democratic Party view.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:55 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    September 26, 2006

    NIE Declassified, Boring

    It's here (PDF) if you really must read it, but it won't tell you news junkies anything you haven't already figured out for yourselves.

    The only question I have is whether or not either the NY Times or Washington Post will admit they were used as dupes in a propaganda effort.

    I'm guessing they won't.

    Update: From Hugh Hewitt:

    The democratic Party and its agenda journalist allies are campaigning for retreat from Iraq, a retreat that would be a decisive victory for the jihadists. Thus any vote for any Congressional Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.

    And that is the conclusion supported by the NIE, touted just 48 hours ago by the left as the key document of this political season.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    Some Don't Forget

    "Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or woman to jump from that high?" Karzai asked recalling some of the more shocking scenes from the World Trade Center bombing. "How do we get rid of them? ... Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?"

    Thus spoke Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan to the media assembled in the East Room of the White House in a joint press conference held with President George W. Bush this morning.

    Sometimes, we do forget, or at least we want to.

    It is far easier to try to forget, or try to pretend that it could never happen again, or pretend that it was somehow our fault, and that if we were just nicer or better or different in some little way, that that day wouldn't have occurred. It is a shame that man from half a world away had to visit our nation's capitol and remind some of us of what should be so obvious.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Steamed Rice: Condi Slaps Clinton Over Wallace Interview Comments

    Bill Clinton's attempt at a face-saving, over-the-top response to Chris Wallace during an interview aired on Fox News Sunday has resulted in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responding, saying that much of what Clinton intoned was a lie:

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

    Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

    "The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

    "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

    The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

    "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

    Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

    I'm relatively sure that much of what the Bush Administration has done regarding terrorism in the months prior to 9/11 remains classified, and so it is difficult to say with any certainty what steps the Administration may have been taking. I would have hoped that among the first steps of the Administration on the subject after taking office would have been to start revamping the human intelligence effort that Clinton gutted in his eight years in office.

    Why did Clinton gut American surveillance? Look to the Donkey:

    In the past twenty years, there have been at least two high-profile incidents involving leaks. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was forced to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee after being tied to a series of leaks in the 1980s. Congressman (later Senator) Robert Torricelli revealed secret information acquired by virtue of his position on the House Intelligence Committee. The information involved a source in Guatemala who had been allegedly been involved in a murder at the behest of then-girlfriend Bianca Jagger. The resulting scandal caused a Clinton Administration “human rights scrub†of human intelligence assets who had been alleged to have connections with criminals or terrorists. Of course, the “human rights scrub†placed the very people who would know about the activities of terrorists and other bad guys off limits to the CIA.

    In short, Bill Clinton, embarrassed by Democrats leaking top secret information to the press, decided that instead of cracking down on Democrats, that the best thing to do was to sever the CIA's contact with the very people who would be in the best position to give us information about terrorist activity.

    This of course, is the same Bill Clinton that invited terrorist leader Yasser Arafat to the White House on numerous occasions and refused to address Iraq's terrorist threat, even though three of the world's most famous terrorists prior to Osama bin Laden—Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and the bomb-builder of the 1993 Word Trade Center attacks Abdul Rahman Yasin—lived as Saddam's guests in Baghdad.

    The Clinton Adminstration also downplayed the fact that Yasin's bomb was built as a chemical weapon; an ammonium nitrate bomb laced with sodium cyanide. Yasin hoped that the bomb would disperse a cloud of poisonous cyanide smoke, killing thousands in the tower as it went up through the elevator and ventilation shafts. Fortunately, the cyanide was vaporized by the blast instead of dispersed in the smoke, and the tower was not undermined by the blast as he hoped. If Yasin had been successful in his 1993 attempt, the casualties of the 1993 Trade Center Attack would likely have far eclipsed the casualties of 9/11. The Clinton Administration responded by treating the treating the attack as a matter of criminal law instead of urgent national security.

    The pattern continued.

    20 were killed and 372 were injured in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. The Clinton Administration did not respond. FBI Director Louis Freeh notes that neither Clinton nor Sandy "Pants" Berger wanted to deal with the fact that Iran was behind the attacks. In the remaining years of his Presidency, Clinton did precisely nothing to bring the bombers to justice. Frustrated by the Clinton Adminstration's inaction, Freeh finally contacted former President George H.W. Bush to move the case forward (my bold):

    I had learned that he [former President Bush] was about to meet Crown Prince Abdullah on another matter. After fully briefing Mr. Bush on the impasse and faxing him the talking points that I had now been working on for over two years, he personally asked the crown prince to allow FBI agents to interview the detained bombers.

    After his Saturday meeting with now-King Abdullah, Mr. Bush called me to say that he made the request, and that the Saudis would be calling me. A few hours later, Prince Bandar, then the Saudi ambassador to Washington, asked me to come out to McLean, Va., on Monday to see Crown Prince Abdullah. When I met him with Wyche Fowler, our Saudi ambassador, and FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson, the crown prince was holding my talking points. He told me Mr. Bush had made the request for the FBI, which he granted, and told Prince Bandar to instruct Nayef to arrange for FBI agents to interview the prisoners.

    Several weeks later, agents interviewed the co-conspirators. For the first time since the 1996 attack, we obtained direct evidence of Iran's complicity. What Mr. Clinton failed to do for three years was accomplished in minutes by his predecessor.

    The Clinton Administration's response? According to Freeh, they buried the evidence collected after a series of "damage control" meetings. It was only after Clinton exited office and President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice got involved that charges were brought forth against the conspirators on June 21, 2001, five years after the attacks, and just four months after President Bush took office.

    That pattern continued.

    More than 200 were killed and more than 4,000 were wounded in simultaneous 1998 car bomb explosions on the U. S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Clinton responded by firing cruise missiles at the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and at nearly empty al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Physical targets were destroyed, but only 20 terrorists were thought to have been killed, and Clinton Secretary of Defense William Cohen said that killing bin Laden, "not our design." Legally, a handful of terrorists were captured, tried, and convicted. Many more terrorists associated with the plot remained free.

    Clinton's most robust response to terrorism was still ineffective.

    Five months before Clinton left office, 17 sailors were killed and 39 were wounded when the U.S.S. Cole was hit by an al Qaeda suicide boat bomber while refueling in the Yemeni port of Aden. The rules of engagement prevented Cole guards from firing upon the approaching vessels without direct order from senior officers. According to Wikipedia:

    Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick said that if the sentries had fired on the suicide craft "we would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing 17 American sailors."

    Bill Clinton left office having never paid more than lip service to finding or destroying those behind the attack. On November 2, 2002, an armed Predator drone operated by the CIA killed Abu Ali al-Harithi and five other terrorists traveling with him in Yemen. The bombing's mastermind, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was captured that same month and is currently being held by the United States at an undisclosed location.

    Bill Clinton did next to nothing to attack al Qaeda in response to four terrorist attacks on the United States during his eight years in office. That he would feign outrage and falsify excuses for his inaction is to invite the criticism he so richly deserves.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:13 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    September 25, 2006

    Eats, Shoots Jihadis and Leaves

    Another Jihadi leader gets killed:

    British forces said they killed a top terrorist leader Monday, identified by Iraqi officials as an al Qaeda leader who had escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan and returned to Iraq.

    Omar Farouq was killed in a pre-dawn raid by 250 British troops from the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment on his home in Basra, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, British forces spokesman Maj. Charlie Burbridge said.

    Farouq was killed after he opened fire on British soldiers entering his home, Burbridge said.

    "We had information that a terrorist of considerable significance was hiding in Basra; as a result of that information we conducted an operation in an attempt to arrest him," Burbridge told The Associated Press by telephone from southern Iraq. "During the attempted arrest Omar Farouq was killed, which is regrettable because we wanted to arrest him."

    I'll admit to being easily amused by this "eats, shoots and leaves" phrasing from above:

    Omar Farouq was killed in a pre-dawn raid by 250 British troops...

    Killed by 250 British soldiers, or killed during a raid conducted by 250 soldiers? The answer is obviously the latter, but the-less-than-perfect sentence construction creates a quick mental image of 250 British soldiers concurrently pouring lead into one hapless jihadi.

    And yes, that's good for a smirk.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    September 23, 2006

    Osama Bin Dyin'? (Part XXIVIII)

    We've got another rumor that Osama bin Laden may have died. Ace makes a more compelling case that I've heard in a while, but until I see a rotting head on a pike, or at least the results of a DNA test, I won't be fully convinced.

    The AP story, again not confirmed, is here.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:12 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    September 22, 2006

    Defending Your Life

    I've been reading some of the commentary leveled against the deal reached between the Congress and the White House to continue to use coercive interrogation techniques to extract information from certain high-value terrorists we have captured.

    I left a version of the following as a comment (not yet posted) at the ABC News Blog The Blotter in response to criticism of the program there, and I think it sums things up nicely:

    ...the simple fact of the matter, as Brian Ross has stated in other forums, is that the six techniques advocated for by the CIA do work very effectively. Ross has stated that 14 terrorists have been interrogated using these methods, and all 14 have given up useful intelligence that has saved American lives as a result. None of these terrorists have been permanently injured using these techniques. Not one.

    The White House and Congress have merely asked that these effective techniques be continued, to save the lives of our friends and neighbors.

    Most Americans have a Jacksonian view of dealing with our nation's enemies. We will afford every right and privilege afforded by the laws of war to an honorable enemy soldier captured on the field of battle. If you fight America honorably, we will treat your honorably, even though you are our enemy. At the same time, if our enemy dismisses the agreed upon common decencies and rights, there are no legal moral or ethical reasons that we should treat them with kidd gloves at the expense of our own lives.

    If our enemies are dishonorable, attacking innocent men, woman, and children instead of legitimate targets, then our gloves will come of as well, and we have the right to engage you in total war with all the methods at our disposal to defeat you. And yet, the United States has conducted an exceedingly restrained and honorable war against terrorists and the nations that support terrorism.

    Even though we have the unquestioned capability, we have not launched the large-scale carpet bombing campaigns against cities and civilian populations that we did in the Second World War. We use precision-guided weaponry whenever possible, with protection of even enemy-sympathetic citizenry always at the forefront of our mission planning. Our honored military veterans are fully aware of the great pains we take to minimize civilian casualties, even though the pains we take to ensure the safety of innocents often puts our soldiers lives at risk in exchange. We have without a doubt, and without contradiction, the most lethal and compassionate military force that this planet has ever seen.

    But even though we are compassionate, we recognize that to survive as this great and compassionate nation, we cannot be weak and cowardly, as many would clearly like us to be.

    The techniques we use are unpleasant and coercive, but they are not torture, and it is both dishonest and disheartening to see our own media attempting to blur the line in such a way to make all such life-saving intelligence gathering techniques a crime.

    By their own repeated, long-standing and well-documented series of abuses of basic human rights and dignities, the terrorists we have captured have forfeited any right for human treatment, and yet we consistently treat them better than we do domestic criminals in our prisons and jails.

    We are clearly on moral ground here, no matter how willing many people in our own nation are willing to give that ground away.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:27 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

    September 21, 2006

    LL Cool A

    Liberals Love Cool Ahmadinejad:

    I keep talking about this with people in real life, but it deserves a blog mention as well -- Mahmoun Ahmadinejad has a pretty sweet hipster style. It all starts with a beard not unlike the one I and many of my twentysomething male friends sport. But it goes deeper. The man went without a tie to address the UN General Assembly. And I was in a bar where the TV was showing his interview with Anderson Cooper (it's DC, these things happen) and while there was no sound, he certainly looked witty and charming. There was also this clip of him walking down some hallway shooting the shit with Kofi Annan. It's like diplomacy! Bush should try it. One gets the sense that he's getting his stody red tie-wearing ass kicked this session by sundry third world goons and it's really not a proud moment for the United States

    I left the following response in his comments:

    Matt,

    There are plenty of fools shuffling down the streets of New York with scruffy beard thinking they know the will of God, it's just that most of them are either homeless or tenured, and none are worth the fawning adoration you bestow on a man that denies the holocaust while advocating its return.

    We want to stop him from commiting genocide. They look to him for fashion tips.

    Security moms, please take note.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:37 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

    Iranian President Caught in a Lie

    This is what he says:

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted Thursday that Tehran's nuclear program is peaceful and said he is "at a loss" about what more he can do to provide guarantees. "The bottom line is we do not need a bomb," he said at a news conference on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. "The time for nuclear bombs has ended," he added.

    This is what they do:

    Iran successfully test-fired a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads, the military said Friday.

    The Fajr-3, which means "Victory" in Farsi, can reach Israel and US bases in the Middle East, state Iranian media indicated - causing alarm in the United States and Israel. The announcement also is likely to stoke regional tensions and feed suspicion about Tehran's military intentions and nuclear ambitions.

    MIRVs--multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles--were developed in the 1960s with one goal in mind, the delivery of multiple nuclear warheads from an intercontinental ballistic missile. Only recently has the United States become the first nation to consider converting MIRVs into non-nuclear weapons systems.

    The Fajr-3 mentioned in the article above is designed and tested with a MIRV that carries three warheads. Israel can be effectively "wiped off the map" as Ahmadinejad has promised, with just two nuclear warheads.

    Iran says it does not want nuclear weapons, yet it develops and tests nuclear-capable missile systems while continuing to try to hide its nuclear program.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the apocalyptic, holocaust-denying "pocket Hitler" of Tehran, has been caught lying again.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Why the Delay?

    I can't understand why Israel has delayed its withdrawal in the wake of a 34-day war instigated by Hezbollah.

    After all, UNIFL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) did promise they would keep the peace by acting as a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel, and they are certainly doing a spectacular job thus far.

    Here are French tanks under UNIFL in peacekeeping duties. That parking lot is certainly well-defended. No Hezbollah activity there.

    tanks

    Here are Italian peacekeepers under UNIFL. No Hezbollah rockets in these boxes of merchandise.

    ital

    This French peacekeeper can't see any members of Hezbollah through these sunglasses.

    frog

    It certainly looks like southern Lebanon is under the kind of helpful protection we've come to expect from the United Nations.

    I don't understand the Israeli concerns at all.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:39 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    ABC News: Torture Works

    Apparently, even harsh critics in the CIA say it is an extremely effective (a perfect 14 for 14) and accurate intelligence gathering technique that has proven effective and saved American lives without a single terrorist suffering permament damage.

    It's time we get this out the hands out of unsanitary back-alley torturers.

    Torture. Let's keep it safe and legal.

    Update: Olbermann. Proved a fool again.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    September 20, 2006

    FEAR: Why The Press Won't Tell You What Ahmadinejad Said

    A striking bit of journalistic malpractice seems to have affected the mainstream media web sites this morning, as news site after news site failed to provide their readers with the transcript of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech last night to the United Nations.

    As of noon at ABC News, it is as if Ahmadinejad never spoke, as their was no reference to his address in front of the United Nations on their Web site's front page, and is notably absent from the headlines of their political section as well. I had to search Google News to find this report on their site, which did not link to the transcript, nor provide Ahmadinejad's closing remarks.

    Likewise, Ahmadinejad's speech was not easily found on the CBS News site, and when an article was found buried below the fold of their International news section, their story, as well, did not provide a transcript nor a summation of his closing remarks.

    The New York Times had Bush's transcript from hours before, but couldn't be troubled to run that of the Iranian President. CNN did likewise.

    The Boston Globe, Fox News, MSNBC, and most other news organizations also failed to either discuss the apocalyptic overtones of the Iranian President's remarks, or provide a transcript from easily available wire reports. To their credit, the Washington Post at least provided the transcript far down on their World News page, though they provided precious little commentary otherwise.

    What is the reason the world media was apparently so eager to bury the content what was a highly anticipated speech by Iran's flamboyant President?

    It was likely his dark conclusion:

    Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world, with the will of the almighty God. It is imperative and also desirable that we, too, contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

    The almighty and merciful God, who is the creator of the universe, is also its lord and ruler. Justice is his command. He commands his creatures to support one another in good, virtue, and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.

    He commands his creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue, and not to sin and transgression. All divine prophets, from the prophet Adam, peace be upon him, to the prophet Moses, to the prophet Jesus Christ, to the prophet Mohammad, have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion.

    Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

    I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people, with love for all humanity, and, above all, longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

    Oh, almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirst for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and makers among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

    This same Iranian President spoke in front of the United Nations previously on September 17, 2005, a fact also missing from many news accounts of the last week. Those that did mention Ahmadinejad's September speech uniformly left off the fact that Ahmadinejad claimed that his September speech in Front of the same United Nations chamber was touched by the Divine:

    Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad says that when he delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, he felt there was a light around him and that the attention of the world leaders in the audience was unblinkingly focused upon him. The claim has caused a stir in Iran, as a transcript and video recording of Ahmadinejad's comments have been published on an Iranian website, baztab.com. There are also reports that a CD showing Ahmadinejad making the comments also has been widely distributed in Iran. Is the Iranian president claiming to be divinely inspired?

    Prague, 29 November 2005 (RFE/RL) -- According the report by baztab.com, President Ahmadinejad made the comments in a meeting with one of Iran's leading clerics, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli.

    Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it.

    "He said when you began with the words 'in the name of God,' I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech]," Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. "I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink."

    Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.

    "I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking," he says. "They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

    During this same speech, Ahmadinejad called for the near-term reappearance of the 12th Imam, who he feels will redeem the world through an apocalypse he feels his sect has the right and responsibility to create. As I noted in August, the mullahcracy that runs Iran belongs to the apocalyptic Hojjatieh sect, a branch of Shia Islam so radical it was banned in 1983 by Ayatollah Khomeini. Their views are, to put it mildly, are startling:

    ...rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi's reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.

    Ahmadinejad's speech last night echoed his beliefs last night. When he stated, "Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world," sooner is now and later is a point that eerily seems to coincide with when many intelligence experts feel Iran may have the capability to build a functional nuclear weapon, and bring about the man-made Armageddon that the Hojjatieh sect feels is their obligation to Allah.

    This leads us back full-circle to ask once more why major U.S. and world media outlets have largely refused to issue transcripts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech last night to the United Nations, and why they chose to embargo his dramatic closing provided above.

    I submit that if the media covered Ahmadinejad's full remarks including the religious references that they clearly and cleverly omitted, then they would have to confront the scope of the clear and present danger that the Iranian regime presents to the rest of the world. Admitting this danger goes against the carefully crafted narrative that they have led themselves to believe, a narrative that they have passed along to their readers and viewers that the United States and Israel are the root causes of problems in the Middle East.

    To admit the dangers of the intertwining of Iranian nuclear weapons development with a radical and apocalyptic eschatology is to admit that President George W. Bush is correct in his determination to prevent Iran from developing the ability to effect a religious nuclear war. It is to admit that there are far greater dangers to our freedoms than terrorist surveillance programs and chilled members of al Qaeda.

    To admit that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad means precisely what he says, and has said time and again, is to admit to larger dangers that neither the press nor the Democratic party they overwhelming support can admit. To admit to the truth—to show what Iran and its leader represent as a threat to the world—is to shatter a carefully crafted illusion they have formulated that most of the problems of the world originate at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    When faced with revealing a truth that would create cognitive dissonance, the media has made the subconscious decision to simply excise, and then ignore, the facts that undercut their "larger truth." They'd rather risk lives than admit the possibility that President Bush's concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran are precisely on target.

    They aren't scared about the possibility of millions of people dying. That are far more fearful that the President is right, and that the world they've created for themselves is all too wrong.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:59 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

    Hiding Behind Children

    Whether inspired by Hamas and Hezbollah or Sunni and Shiite terror leaders in Iraq, it's hard to see attempts such as these to use children as bait or targets with anything other than abject contempt:

    Shiite militias are encouraging children — some as young as 6 or 7 — to hurl stones and gasoline bombs at U.S. convoys, hoping to lure American troops into ambushes or provoke them into shooting back, U.S. soldiers say.

    Gangs of up to 100 children assemble in Sadr City, stronghold of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, and in nearby neighborhoods, U.S. officers said in interviews this week.

    American soldiers have seen young men, their faces covered by bandanas, talking with the children before the rock-throwing attacks begin — and sometimes handing out slingshots so the volleys will be more accurate, the troops said.

    "It's like a militia operation. They'll mass rocks on the last or second-to-last vehicle" in a U.S. patrol, said Capt. Chris L'Heureux, 30, of Woonsocket, R.I. "There's no doubt in my mind that they're utilizing these kids in a deliberate, thought-out way."

    The U.S. military is of course ignoring the attacks thus far. Armored combat vehicles are not threatened by rocks, but it is probably only a matter of time until the same militiamen stoop to an even lower level.

    As U.S. forces refuse to be baited by children armed with rocks, it is probably only a matter of time before they arm one of these children with a grenade, knowing that a 6 or 7 year old will not be able to throw the one-pound weapons far enough to keep from killing or wounding themselves.

    The deaths of these children--caused directly by al-Sadr's militiamen--will be blamed upon coalition forces in a "Pallywood" production in an attempt to further inflame tensions in an area where al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army" of rag-tag militiamen and death squads are coming under increasing pressure from U.S. and Iraqi Army forces.

    There are two ways of resolve this style of cowardly attack before deaths result from the militia's use of children, one military, and one social.

    Militarily, U.S. and Iraqi forces--especially Iraqi Army forces--must step up the tempo of operations inside the Sadr City slums of Baghdad, arresting and if necessary killing Muqtada al-Sadr and other leaders of the Madhi Army.

    At the same time, Iraqi police and military units need to go on a public relations offensive in Sadr City, informing mothers and fathers of how al-Sadr's militiamen are using their children as bait. It is quite possible that some parents support the cowardly acts of the al Sadr militiamen, but I suspect many will respond with anger towards the militia and their children's too willing participation as did the one mother mentioned in the article:

    After several rocks were thrown at passing U.S. vehicles in Shaab, soldiers followed one child home. When soldiers told his mother what had happened, she slapped her son across the face in front of them.

    A smart P.R. campaign waged by Shiite soldiers in the Iraqi Army can turn the militia's cowardice and scheming against them, driving a wedge between al Sadr and the people he would use to consolidate his own power. One can only hope that the Iraqi Army is smart enough to realize that this potential for tragedy can be turned into an opportunity to strengthen ties between the Iraqi Army and those they would protect.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Former Archbishop: Pope Was Right

    So much for collapsing in fear (h/t: PJM):

    THE former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to "violent" Islam in a lecture in which he defends the Pope's "extraordinarily effective and lucid" speech.

    Lord Carey said that Muslims must address "with great urgency" their religion's association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the "clash of civilisations" endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.

    "We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times," he said. "There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths."

    Lord Carey, seem to know the Islamic faith and culture quite well.

    Lord Carey, who as Archbishop of Canterbury became a pioneer in Christian-Muslim dialogue, himself quoted a contemporary political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who has said the world is witnessing a "clash of civilisations".

    Arguing that Huntington's thesis has some "validity", Lord Carey quoted him as saying: "Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power."

    As they say, read the whole thing.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    September 19, 2006

    Runaways

    I'm with Bryan all the way on this.

    Many countries have been state sponsors of terrorism, but France has just become the first state sponsor of hostages.

    french

    Enjoy the Brie, boys.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Islamist Who Called For Pope's Execution Was a Drunken Heretic

    Gee, what didn't he do?

    This week he stood outside Westminster Cathedral in central London to call for the execution of the Pope as punishment for 'insulting Islam'. He fulminated against Pope Benedict XVl, adding: "Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

    It's a long way from his days as a medical student at Southampton University, where, friends say, he drank, indulged in casual sex, smoked cannabis and even took LSD. He called himself 'Andy' and was famed for his ability to drink a pint of cider in a few seconds.

    One former acquaintance said: "At parties, like the rest of us, he was rarely without a joint. The morning after one party, I can remember him getting all the roaches (butts) from the spliffs we had smoked the night before out of the ashtrays, cutting them up and making a new one out of the leftovers.

    "He would say he was a Muslim and was proud of his Pakistani heritage, but he did-n't seem to attend any of the mosques in Southampton, and I only knew of him having white girlfriends. He certainly shared a bed with them."

    On one occasion, 'Andy' and a friend took LSD together. The friend said: "We took far too much and were hallucinating for 20 hours."

    Stoner. Drunk. Acidhead. Islamist.

    It appears Mr. Choudary is addicted to all sorts of self-destructive behavior.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Gulag University

    The U.K. Guardian has obtained a list of seven interrogation techniques that the CIA would like to use to interrogate al Qaeda terror suspects.

    They are:

    • induced hypothermia
    • forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods
    • sleep deprivation
    • a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized
    • the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage
    • the "belly slap"
    • sound and light manipulation

    Color me unimpressed. Throw in copious amounts of alcohol and some co-eds, and this sounds more like my college years than torture.

    Inducted hypothermia
    Hundreds of thousands of people expose themselves to this voluntarily every Saturday for three to five hours at a time, once tailgating is included. It's called going to a college football game.

    football
    Torture.

    Forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods
    In college, this period is called "registration."

    registration
    Torture.

    sleep deprivation
    This is called "final exams," where sleepless nights are commonplace and stress levels stay very high for days at a time.

    studying-freshman
    Torture.

    a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized

    We called this "going to bars." Sometimes the grabbing was wanted (where we called this horrific act "flirting"), was innocuous (grabbing a friend by the shirt to drag them to the next bar), or was not wanted (grabbing someone to eject them from a bar). I've done all three as a student and short-term bar manager, and at least at my college, you saw a lot of all three on Halloween, where the holiday was one of the biggest celebrations of the year.

    alien
    Torture.

    the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage

    We have another term for this: male bonding.

    It was observed pretty consistently throughout college, and it is also called "horsing around." Fraternities--groups people voluntarily joined of their own free will--generally did things that were a lot worse and often lot more disgusting. I'd rather go through a chest slap than get the "wear a raw egg on your head under a hat all day" treatment one fraternity made their pledges go through when I was in school, and the stuff they did in earlier times to pledges would certainly be a war crime in today's climate.

    gitmo
    Torture.

    the "belly slap"

    See above. Not uncommon where testosterone and alcohol intermingle. Annoying? Check. Torture? If so this blogger (certainly an odd duck by any measure) is the Marquis de Sade reincarnated.

    sound and light manipulation
    Here in the United States, we don't call that torture, we call it "going to bars and concerts." Again, tens of thousands of college students pay good money for this kind of treatment every night of the week.

    danceclub
    Torture.

    Admittedly, the environment provided by the CIA to carry out interrogations will not be festive and those being interrogated are not there of their own free will, but that hardly constitutes torture. Some normal prison conditions in the United States expose prisoners to far worse treatment, and most of that comes from other inmates. Some prisons such as the Cook County Jail in Dick "Gulag" Durbin's home district are worse than the conditions of Abu Ghraib.

    I don't feel outraged if terrorists are slapped around a little bit, or made cold, or tired, or uncomfortable. Run-of-the-mill prisoners in American jails face the same treatment as those terrorists we've captured, and many face far worse.

    Many of the techniques described here are no more violent or degrading than what I've seen fraternity pledges exposed to, and to the best of my knowledge, no members of al Qaeda have been forced to serenade a sorority with "You lost that Lovin' Feelin'" wearing nothing but their "tighty whiteys" and a smile on a cold winter morning.

    Perhaps when John McCain is done torturing our intelligence gathering capabilities, he can do to the universities what he has already done to campaign finance reform.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:54 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    September 18, 2006

    Noting the Differences

    A British Muslim extremist named Anjem Choudary is stating that Pope Benedict XVI should face execution for quoting from a conversation between 14th Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel II Paleologos and an educated Persian.

    The Pope's speech—a lecture on faith and reason—was a call for a reasoned synergy between faith and science to complete the human soul, and a reasoned dialogue between faiths. Islam has responded with riots around the world, the burning of no less than seven churches thus far, and the murder of a Catholic nun. A reasoned call for a lifestyle balancing secular science and theology has been responded to with unreasoning hatred, including calls for Jihad by al Qaeda and "moderate" Muslims alike.

    Pope Benedict XVI called for reason and dialogue between faiths, and worldwide, Islam has responded with violence and the threats of violence, a point not lost on the Archbishop of Sydney:

    Cardinal George Pell says "the violent reactions in many parts of the Islamic world" to a speech by Pope Benedict justified one of the main fears expressed by the world's Catholic leader.

    "They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence," Cardinal Pell said in a statement yesterday.

    Once upon a time, I was under the belief that Islam was a rational faith, and that those that carried out violent attacks in the name of Islam misunderstood their own faith. It was both presumptuous and ignorant for me to make that assumption, as I see it now reflected in response to a call for reason from a man of God.

    The violent acts carried out by Islamists—and the near-total silence from what we like to think is a majority of moderate Muslims—has ended the last illusions about Islam for many around the world. Our eyes are opening to see that Muslims seek not dialogue, but domination. Pope Benedict seeks reciprocity and respect between faiths, and Muslims are responding with attempts at intimidation. We see now that these calls for violence are not a minority viewpoint, but a sincere and troubling part of their core beliefs.

    Islam means "submission," and one billion people who practice the faith seem intent on making the other five billion people on this plant submit to their views. Their desire for domination of the world by their increasingly irrational faith shows that it is they, not the West, that seeks to engage in a Holy War. They would be wise to reconsider their views.

    The original Crusades saw Christian and Muslim armies that were technologically equals. That equality no longer exists today, and the military superiority of the West over the Islamic world is pronounced. To date, Western reason shaped by Judeo-Christian compassion has prevented us from using our military supremacy to forcefully thwart Islamist plans for world domination with our full might, but our decision to hold that power in check is not without limits.

    If practitioners of the Muslim faith think that they can exert their will unchecked through the most violent of means without facing an earthly reckoning beyond their comprehension, they are sadly mistaken. Our rational beliefs have had us regarding Islam as a possible threat to be dealt with surgically, but not one yet worth acting against generally with our full military might.

    One act of sufficient scope and horror would change the calculus of the equation. Islamists seem to sincerely believe that nations shaped by Judeo-Christian beliefs are soft, and that we will fall quickly if they act with sufficient aggression and callousness against those they see as infidels.

    Islamic leaders should reconsider the ramifications of the widespread Jihad they call for against the West. If they provoke us sufficiently, the same reason that has had us hold ourselves in check to date will dictate that that restraint we have practiced is counterproductive to our continued existence, and Islam will not see another century.

    We are not weak, but reasoned, and the Muslims of the world crying for violent Jihad against would be wise to note the difference.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:10 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBack

    September 15, 2006

    A Question of Literacy at Think Progress

    Poor Faiz.

    He seems to have problems with the simplest of concepts:

    Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that "bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism." Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is "not a top priority use of American resources." Watch it.

    [snip]

    Bush's priorities have always been skewed. Just months after declaring he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive," Bush said, "I truly am not that concerned about him." Turning his attention away from bin Laden, Bush trained his focus on Iraq — a country he now admits had "nothing" to do with 9/11.
    Capturing bin Laden, as Rep. Nancy Pelosi recently pointed out, will not necessarily make America safer because it would come five years too late. Yet, capturing or killing the man responsible for 9/11 should remain a high priority.

    Bush said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive" less than a week after 9/11, and in March of 2002 said that he was "not that concerned about him" in the following context after the Taliban and al Qaeda has been driven from power in Afghanistan.

    Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of -- THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

    Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

    So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
    And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

    Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
    But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

    And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

    Faiz, of course, took a single-line comment out of a much larger comment, completely out of context. Sadly, Faiz shows he just didn't understand what Bush was saying here. If he did, he couldn't logically disagree with the President's point.

    How did Bush begin his response, back in 2002? With a concept Faiz and most other Democrats can't apparently grasp four years later:

    Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

    Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

    Let's slow it down and break it into tiny little chunks for our liberal friends to comprehend.

    Osama bin Laden, in September 2001, was the undisputed leader of al Qaeda in all capacities. By March 2002 when the President made this comment, we were not sure if Osama was even still alive, or if he had been killed on chaotic Afghan battlefields.

    Bush is showing her that he understands terrorist organizations do not have a rigid top-down hierarchy. Taking out Osama, while a great public relations victory for the United States and a temporary psychological blow to his followers, would have very little effect on the overall distributed network of cells. The invasion of Afghanistan drove Osama completely out of tactical and operational control of al Qaeda, and thoroughly isolated him. He is still a nice trophy if we happen to catch him, but as a current planner and plotter of terrorism, he is of very little importance, and our top resources should go towards fighting those that still have an active role.

    That is what Bush meant over four years ago when he said that:

    …focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

    Bush was precisely right in March of 2002. Even with four years to think about it, Democrats such as Faiz can't seem to grasp a concept so simple it can be explained in less than 30 seconds.

    Perhaps he needs another example, one that is a little simpler. Let's use baseball.

    A major league batter facing Nolan Ryan at the top of his game was going against one of the greatest pitchers of all time. A hypothetical major league batter facing Nolan Ryan four years after he retired would be facing much less of a threat.

    As a nation fighting a global war against Islamic terrorists and the nation-states that support them, we have a lot of high priorities.

    Finding a way to decrease sectarian violence and dismantle the insurgency in Iraq. Defeating the Taliban and finding a way to destroy the opium crop that supports it Afghanistan that financially supports it would be another. Finding a way to stop nuclear weapons development and terrorist support in Iran, a nation led by a sect that believes in their ability to force the return of their savior through a burning of the world is another. Dismantling active terrorist cells and the attacks they are attempting is yet another high priority.

    Dedicating a large amount of men and resources to track down and kill a single figurehead that lives in remote isolation and who is not thought to play a direct role in planning or executing attacks for over four years is not a high priority, nor should it be. Osama bin Laden, other than sporadically appearing in cheerleading videos, has been taken out of the picture.

    Bush knew that in 2002. Four years later, Think Progress and other liberals have yet to understand that basic concept.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:36 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

    September 14, 2006

    They Call Themselves Peace Activists

    I know very little about the credibility of the writer or the veracity of his claims, but if he is correct, it appears than one liberal "peace movement" organization may be very close to crossing the line into becoming open terrorist sympathizers (h/t Michelle Malkin):

    As a front group for Palestinian terrorists, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) sends young people from all over the world to the training fields of the West Bank and Gaza to learn from terrorists and to aid them logistically. Stop the ISM has now obtained photographs of ISM leaders and organizers holding AK-47 assault rifles. The images show some of the ISM women disguised as Jews living in the West Bank and in the company of an Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorist.

    One of our volunteers in the United Kingdom for Stop the ISM managed to infiltrate the ISM late last June in the Holy Land where the ISM operates in direct support of terrorists. Our volunteer (who prefers to remain anonymous to avoid retaliatory attacks) has had prior experience going undercover for the police in the UK. The photos and intelligence he brought back are proving invaluable to intelligence agencies watching the ISM and have been in official hands for over a month prior to this publication.

    Unfortunately, neither U.S. Homeland Security nor the Israeli security agencies have to date regarded the ISM as a serious threat. Some of these ISM people in these photos managed to escape; nevertheless, arrests have been made, and more are forthcoming.

    If the ISM sounds vaguely familiar, perhaps a picture will help you remember.

    saint pancake

    That's ISM activist Rachel Corrie burning a hand-drawn American flag in front of Palestinian school children. Corrie was a far left activist that joined the ISM her senior year at Evergreen State College in Washington. She was killed in 2003 by an Israeli bulldozer as she attempted to protect a network of tunnels being used to smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

    It doesn't look like things have changed much, unless you want to consider the possibility that ISM activists are making their long-suspected support for terrorists a little more "hands on" than it once was.

    s9

    The caption for this photo reads in part:

    Gabi laughs it up while Alan, the other ISM volunteer who works at the Faisal Youth Hostel, smiles with his machine gun. To the far right is the al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorist overseeing the festivities. Real “peace activists†don't pose with machine guns in the company of terrorists, but the ISM does.

    What else is there to say?

    From getting run over defending terrorist's weapons tunnels to proudly displaying them in Palestinian prisons, we've got only one thing to say to the leftists of the ISM: You've come a long way, baby.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:27 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    Revising History

    Captain's Quarters (h/t Insty) notes this morning that there appears to be some revisionism occurring in the wake of the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah. Arab states and much of the world media originally trumpeted that the war was a undisputed victory for Hezbollah.

    Now, those most directly affected seem to think otherwise:

    The war stripped more than a few masks from the players in the region. Nasrallah now has to contend with the fallout from his impatient attack on Israel, from the Lebanese and also from the Iranians who had wanted Hezbollah and their rockets as a threat to be feared, not an attack to be weathered and then discounted. His image as the protector of Lebanon has been shattered, and the Lebanese now see him as a threat instead of a savior. After years of Syrian control, they now have to recognize that a large portion of their country is under de facto Iranian occupation, and they're not happy about it.

    This has eroded the veneer of victory that Nasrallah placed on the cease-fire. Western commentators and no shortage of Israeli pundits pointed to Nasrallah's claims to have prevailed as a devastating propaganda offensive that would make Israel and the West look weaker than ever. Arabs have taken a more realistic view of the war's results, including the fact that Nasrallah has to make those claims from undisclosed locations to this day. They scoff at his bravado, noting that Nasrallah's vaunted rocket attacks killed more Israeli Arabs than anyone else and proved singularly ineffective as a deterrent to the Israeli incursion.

    I've noted on several occasions almost a month ago that the war went far worse for Hezbollah than the world media was willing to admit.

    Hezbollah suffered 500-600+ confirmed fatalities at the hands of the IDF, and another 800-1200 are estimated to have been killed in Israeli air strikes. As Hezbollah's active fighters were estimated to number 1,000 or less with 3,000-5,000 more available before this most recent conflict began, it seems that many more such "victories" will see Hezbollah's military wing wiped from the face of the earth.

    In addition to Hezbollah's combat loses, the damage to the infrastructure that they brought upon southern Lebanon is quite severe, and will take years of reconstruction and billions of dollars to repair.

    But Hezbollah is not by any stretch the only loser in this war, as the world media, and Arab journalists and photojournalists in particular, have suffered tremendous blows to their credibility.

    Early on, Hezbollah attempted to recycle the white phosphorus/WMD claims made in the invasion of Fallujah, and the media willing lapped it up without properly investigating the claims. When those claims were conclusively debunked by chemical analysis of tissue samples take from the victims, the media brushed it aside, and took a hit to their credibility as a result.

    Shortly thereafter, an Israeli air strike a mile outside the village of Qana was blamed for the death of nearly 60 family members, most of them children. Mostly Arab photojournalists flocked to the scene and flooded the world press with photo after gruesome photo of dead children, and bloggers began questioning whether or not the photos were staged by Hezbollah for the benefit of the press. The media vehemently denied the claims of staging, even after video evidence of a rescue worker dubbed "Green Helmet" was caught on video directing stretcher bearers to remove the body from an ambulance so that it could be re-shot by an assembled throng of photographers.

    Time and again, photojournalists took questionable photograph after questionable photograph after questionable photograph, causing increasing scrutiny of photos coming out of Lebanon, where bloggers wondered if scenes were being posed and manipulated.

    The came concrete proof that one prolific photographer has been manipulating images in photo-editing software on his computer before releasing them to publication. He was fired. When a second accusation of fraud was leveled at his work, his entire body of work--over 900 photos--was deleted.

    The Israeli-Hezbollah war showed the weaknesses of a news-gathering system where story framing and composition is based as much on marketability as it is factuality, and blatant control by Hezbollah was tacitly agreed to and under-reported by those who had their scenes and stories often chosen and manipulated for them by Hezbollah minders.

    Time may indeed show that there were actually three losers in the Israeli-Hezbollah War. Israel lost the political battle, Hezbollah lost the military war, and the media lost its most cherished asset, credibility.

    Of all of these losses, the media may have the toughest time recovering.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:40 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

    September 13, 2006

    A Failure of Initiative

    This is simply unbelievable:

    Taliban terror leaders who had gathered for a funeral - and were secretly being watched by an eye-in-the-sky American drone - dodged assassination because U.S. rules of engagement bar attacks in cemeteries, according to a shocking report.

    U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an easy kill of Taliban honchos packed in tight formation for the burial, NBC News reported.
    The unmanned airplane, circling undetected high overhead, fed a continuous satellite feed of the juicy target to officers on the ground.

    "We were so excited. I came rushing in with the picture," one U.S. Army officer told NBC.
    But that excitement quickly turned to gut-wrenching frustration because the rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan blocked the U.S. from mounting a missile or bomb strike in a cemetery, according to the report.

    Pentagon officials declined comment and referred The Post to Central Command officers in Afghanistan, who did not respond to a request for comment or explanation.

    We had a high concentration of enemy officers exposed with little or no cover, and did not fire upon them because they were in a cemetary?

    cem

    Was it like this one in a battle in Najaf, Iraq, that was so well known they made a video game out of it?

    m25.large.najaf-6

    This is the single most mind-numbingly stupid "shoot/no shoot" determinations I have heard of in this entire war. This was not a situation where that was significant risk of there being collateral damage to nearby civilians. The only people present were Taliban leaders that we want dead, and those in the cemetery that were already dead.

    If this story is accurate and there are no mitigating circumstances we are unaware of, then we're looking at two levels of incompetence.

    The higher level incompetence of placing cemeteries off limits in the rules of engagement was most likely the decision of senior military officers, perhaps with State Department input. Whoever made such a determination should be stripped of these duties. War is not to be fought politely, and the enemy should not be give a "timeout" from the war unless civilian lives are at risk.

    On the direct tactical level, the officer directly in charge of this flight should have taken the initiative and made the determination that attacking such a concentration of Taliban leaders was more important to the success of the mission that was "going by the book."

    A constant advantage for U.S. military forces throughout our nation's history has been the ability of individual small unit leaders to deviate from the battle plan when necessary to accomplish the mission on a fast-changing battlefield. Battle to battle, war to war, the decision was made to train our soldiers, from boot camp onward to seize the initiative to complete the mission.

    That initiative was lost here.

    The officer in charge of this flight certainly followed the rules, but he failed in his larger duty. The military's primary job is to protect the nation by killing its enemies. He unwilling to take the initiative needed to ignore an arbitrary decision, and enemy leaders walked away unscathed to plot death once more.

    Update Footage of an estimated 190 massed Taliban from the Hellfire-armed Predator drone (via Fox News):

    talibangetaway

    Based upon how tightly they are grouped, the single drone's Hellfire missiles would have likely have terminated the terrorism careers of every single Talib in this photo.

    This military is investigating the leaking of the photo to the Post (h/t Michelle Malkin).

    The U.S. military said Wednesday it is looking into the unauthorized release of a photo purportedly taken by an American drone aircraft showing scores of Taliban militants at a funeral in Afghanistan.

    NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by the Predator drone, but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.

    I have no problem with the investigation. A leak, even one that points out such obvious incompetence, is still a leak, no matter what the motive, and needs to be dealt with.

    I do hope, however, that the Army spends as much time finding out why an absurd order not to fire upon massed terrorists simply becuase of their location in a cemetery was written. I'd also like them to investigate why that order was not quickly superceded by operational imperatives once the target was clearly identified for the large concentration of enemy forces that it was.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    With A Large Pinch of Salt

    The ABC News blog The Blotter has a reputation for having good sources within the U.S. intelligence community, so when they take the time to write about known al Qaeda terrorist Adnan El' Shukrijumah not once, but twice in a two-week time span, it is something worth keeping on your radar.

    The radar signal got stronger when journalist Hamid Mir said that his contacts in al Qaeda indicate that Shukrijumah might be plotting to detonate a nuclear device in the United States during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan later this month.

    Allahpundit notes that this is a probably a false alarm, and I think he is more than likely correct. That said, the first Blotter link above notes that "virtually every" FBI field office is hunting Shukrijumah, so he is deemed a credible threat, if not necessarily a present one.

    I first read all the links above when I got home from work late last night, but wanted to sleep on it before commenting.

    It seems unlikely to me that Shukrijumah or other al Qaeda operatives would be able to easily obtain a nuclear warhead, and even if they were able to obtain such a device, the chance of successfully smuggling it across an ocean to the United States seems exceedingly remote.

    It is far more likely that toxic radioactive substances, however, could be smuggled in or stolen, and combined with homemade explosives (such as TATP, a terrorist favorite) to create a radiological "dirty bomb."

    Such a weapon uses the blast effect of high explosives to spread radiation over a local area that would likely affect both the local blast area and locations downwind, perhaps encompassing several square miles in some degree of radiation. The probably destructive capability of a dirty bomb is not that much more significant than that of a conventional high explosive blast, but those in the area contaminated area would face radiation dangers in addition to normal blast effects. There would probably be a higher fatality and injury rate as a result, but nothing approaching the level of even the smallest tactical nuclear warhead.

    The primary benefit of such a detonation to terrorists is the fear that will spread. If detonated in a densely populated urban area, the panic such a weapon could instill in the population could possibly cause casualties and disrupt life for a significant length of time, but the area can be decontaminated and returned to use.

    The long-term political effects of deploying such a weapon are as yet known, but we can speculate. What will almost immediately occur is that the people of the United States will once again realize that the War on Terrorism does not occur just "over there." Terrorism should be thought of not only as an international issue but a local one as well, and images and stories of American civilians being killed and injured at home is likely to create a cry for the Legislative and Executive branches to take a far more aggressive role in combating terrorism both domestically and overseas.

    If it was determined that such a weapon was smuggled into the country, or that those who detonated the weapon came across a border (particularly the Mexican border) to do so, then the politics of border security would radically change in a very short amount of time. I think that an immediate and total crackdown on illegal immigration would occur very quickly, and that Congress would be forced to implement a full border wall, with increased staffing and detection equipment, more lenient chase and capture guidelines for Border Patrol agents, and far harsher penalties for attempted illegal immigration. I do not think it likely that illegal immigrants already in America will be rounded up in massive sweeps, but the public could possibly force lawmakers to consider that possibility. There are simply too many variables in this equation to comment beyond that.

    If such a strike were to occur, I think that the White House is almost certain to receive massive complaints from Congressional Conservatives (particularly in the House) because of current lax border security policies, and Democrats would seize upon the opportunity to indicate that the Administration is failing to be effective in the War on Terror. I think this is a double-edged sword, however, as Democrats have been far more lax in regards to border security and illegal immigration than even the White House, so it is unlikely to be a winning issue for them.

    The overseas intelligence intercept program that the media and Democrats have tired to spin as "domestic spying" will finally be understood for what it really is, and will no longer be thought of as an encroachment on freedoms, but as the rational extension of intelligence gathering capabilities that it always has been.

    Overseas, I think you would see an increased political and diplomatic effort to convince Pakistan to allow Coalition military forces to penetrate deep into the tribal areas of its western border region with Afghanistan so that al Qaeda and Taliban staging and training areas can be forcefully struck. Also in Afghanistan, I think you will see a much more concerted effort to eradicate the poppy crop, the Taliban's single most important funding source. Neither bodes well for al Qaeda's ally.

    Next door in Iran, I think that a much more muscular diplomatic response to Iran's nuclear ambitions would be forced by the United States in the wake of a dirty bomb attack on America. Recent radiological destruction would make it impossible for us to allow Iran to continue down the road toward weapons development. Harsh sanctions and a blockade enforced by U.S. military assets would force Iranian leaders to either back down from their nuclear aims, or force them to engage us in a regional conflict in which their mostly conscripted military, primarily armed with obsolete weapons, could not hope to prevail.

    If a blockade or conflict in the region with Iran is imminent, you might also expect forces to be built up in Iraq to guard against a cross-border attack by Iran that some intelligence sources say might occur. Once the Iranian threat de-escalates, it seems plausible that the additional Army and Marine units brought in to deal with the Iranian threat might be sent to Iraq to dismantle Shia militias that would suddenly be without their primary supporters, and to al Anbar to take on Sunni insurgents that we do not seem to presently have the manpower to pacify.

    These sudden shifts in the region, if they occur, could put Syria in a very unstable position. I will not speculate as the whether or not his Baathist regime would fall without the support of Iran, but it would make Syrian support of terrorism a front-burner topic, perhaps forcing it to finally withdraw support of Islamic terror groups such as Hezbollah.

    This is all extremely speculative, of course.

    There is presently no way of knowing when a terror attack involving a radiological weapon could occur, nor if it will ever occur, and trying to predict what may happen is admittedly roaming far into speculative territory on a very high, very thin wire.

    But there are some things we know for certain.

    We do know al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations have tried to direct attacks on the U.S. mainland before and after 9/11, and to date, all of those other attacks have failed. We know they or other Islamic terrorists will try to attack again. We also know that at some point they are likely to be successful.

    What will be our response when that day arrives?

    That may largely depend on which political party happens to be in power when and if such an attack occurs.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:45 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    They Support the Troops

    They just won't talk to them. Or make eye contact. Or listen.

    But they support the troops.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:05 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    September 12, 2006

    Redefining Winning

    According to Richard Cohen, the War on Terror is over, and Osama won:

    I hear bin Laden laughing. I heard him all day on Sunday and Monday as the mass murder of Sept. 11, 2001, was memorialized at the Pentagon and in that field in Pennsylvania and, especially, here where the most people died and where countless cameras recorded it all for posterity and an abiding, everlasting, anger. He laughs, the madman does, whenever George Bush says, as he has over and over, that America is "winning this war on terror.'' Osama bin Laden knows better. He has already won.

    It is not merely that bin Laden has not been captured or killed and that videotapes keep coming out of his hideout like taunts, it is rather that his initial strategy has borne fruit. It was always his intention to draw America into Afghanistan where, as had been done to the Soviets, they could be mauled by the fierce mujaheddin. He tried and failed when he blew up the USS Cole off Aden at 11:15 a.m. on Oct. 12, 2000, killing 17 sailors and crippling the ship. But he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations when the U.S. responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by invading Afghanistan and, in a beat, then going to war in Iraq. It remains mired in both countries to this day.

    To Cohen I pose the question, "What price, victory?"

    Al Qaeda has been driven from its training bases in Afghanistan, and can find no more states to openly provide it sanctuary. The Taliban that once supported bin Laden in Afghanistan have been driven from power, and when they emerge, reformed, to attempt to take back their country, they are killed by NATO forces by the hundreds.

    Al Qaeda's leaders and specialists, their tacticians and their weapons experts, continue to fall prey to Coalition forces. Some are captured. Many are killed (more than 1,500 to date). More of al Qaeda's leadership circa 9/11 resides in Cuba or in the earth than lives in Afghanistan's frontier or Pakistan's tribal areas. Those that remain skitter from cave to cave knowing that this day may be the day a Hellfire-armed U.S. Air Force drone sends them to Allah, or more likely, some place much more warm and less inviting.

    StrategyPage notes that there were eight state sponsors of terrorism on 9/12/01; now the regimes sponsoring terror in Afghanistan and Iraq have been deposed, and Libya, seeing the writing on the wall, has given up without a shot being fired.

    I wish more such "victories" for al Qaeda.

    If they continue, Islamic terrorism will cease through attrition.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:31 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    Running Away Toward Genocide

    Via Fox News:

    Democrats are blasting President Bush for giving what they call a political prime-time speech on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

    In his address Monday from the Oval Office, Bush tied the anniversary to the War on Terror and the need to continue the war in Iraq.

    "Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," Bush said. "They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.

    Democrats were quick to fire off statements declaring Bush's words partisan.

    "The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement. "There will be time to debate this president's policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time."

    While Bush's speech itself was poorly delivered according to those who watched it, the quoted section of his speech above is absolutely accurate.

    There have been many mistakes made in Iraq, just as there have been major mistakes made in nearly every war the United States has ever fought, from the Revolutionary War until today. But to give up in Iraq, where the United States has never lost a major engagement, would be seen by the Arab world as a victory for Islamic terrorism.

    Abruptly pulling out of Iraq would:

    • increase the power and prestige of terrorist groups within the Arab world
    • inspire despots to expand funding and military support for terrorist groups as an extension of their foreign policy
    • lead to greater sectarian violence
    • increase the likelihood of a Balkanized state where a full-scale civil war and mass genocide is more possible
    • increase the possibility of a regional war, with Turkey and Iran both striking to crush the Kurdish north of the country

    The current sectarian violence in Iraq is bloody enough without us relinquishing the country to be feasted upon by its neighbors and internal factions. If you think the "neo-con" war is expensive in terms of lives and treasure, explore the possibilities of the Democratic "peace."

    Thousands are currently dying in Iraq each month in sectarian violence. The al Anbar province is in dire straits. Many voices, particularly those on the left, are calling for the United States to retreat. The one thing these voices utterly refuse to acknowledge is the cost of the unconditional surrender they'd effect.

    If we withdraw precipitously before Iraq is stabilized, we run the risk of twin genocides in concurrent civil and regional wars.

    Sunni vs Shia
    Led for decades by bloody Sunni Baathist regimes, the minority Sunnis have been the core of the insurgency, and still retain strong support among some Sunni civilians, particularly in the al Anbar province where they share some ideological roots and goals with al Qaeda in Iraq. The new Iraqi Army, like the old, is primarily composed of Shia soldiers, and if the United States pulls out before the country can be stabilized, there is much concern that the Shia may overrun their former tormentors, setting the scene for potential genocide.

    Kurdistan Regional War
    Even within the existing Iraqi government the Kurdish north of Iraq have been pushing strongly for a nearly autonomous region under their specific control. They have long dreamed of an independent Kurdistan, encompassing northern Iraq, as well as significant territory in Turkey, Iran, and Syria (see map). Kurds were promised an independent nation-state in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, but later wars and treaties kept that from ever coming to pass. Turkey and Iran, who are already engaged in sporadic cross-border conflicts with Kurdish forces today, would likely not hesitate to invade Kurdish Iraq if they feel their own sovereignty may be threatened. The Kurds, known for thousands of years to be ferocious fighters (the word "Kurd" means "warrior" in Kurdish), would likely be able to turn the mountainous areas of Kurdistan to their advantage, with the distinct possibility of making Kurdish and Iranian invasions resemble the bloody Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The blood the Kurds would draw from the Iranians in the mountains would almost certainly be translated to massive civilian casualties in Kurdish cities dwarfing anything we've seen in the Iraq War so far.

    Based upon these scenarios, the precipitous withdrawal called for in the liberal "peace plan" in Iraq has the potential for casualties ranging from the hundreds of thousands to well over a million. If the Leftist "victory" in Southeast Asia (1.7 million), and the abortive Russian efforts in Afghanistan (900,000) provides us with any sort of a useful yardstick to measure the potential cost of failure, the casualties to Iraq could range into the millions, with millions of more civilians being displaced.

    And so we seem to have a choice:

    We can commit to finding out precisely what we need to do to make Iraq a self-sustaining country with functioning economic, political, and security systems;

    -OR-

    We can cut and run—"redeploying" to other parts of the world as leading Democrats are calling for—and wash our hands of the country we created as it falls into internal and region wars that will kill or displace millions.

    If we do the latter, history will not look upon our nation kindly... nor should it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:44 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

    U.S. Embassy in Damascus Attacked

    Via CNN:

    Syrian security forces on Tuesday killed four gunmen after they tried to storm the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the Syrian Information Ministry said.

    No American diplomats were harmed.

    A fifth attacker was wounded and in custody, officials said. It was not immediately clear how many total attackers may have been involved.

    "The State Department confirms an attack by unknown assailants," said Kurtis Cooper, a State Department spokesman in Washington. "The event appears to be under control and handled by local authorities."

    There was no word of casualties among the Syrian security forces who battled the gunmen.

    The embassy was not damaged in the attack.

    Sticky Notes was on this quickly, and has some photos of the scene of what appears to be unexploded bombs made of bulk propane cylinders and pipe bombs.

    No Americans were hurt, and there are no reports that U.S. Marines stationed at the embassy opened fire.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    September 11, 2006

    Al Qaeda's Vietnams

    While many are focused (rightly) on remembering what we lost five years ago today, Ralph Peters chose instead to remember what we have since achieved. One of his salient points was to describe the fact that Iraq has become al Qaeda's Vietnam:

    No end of lies have been broadcast about our liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan "creating more terrorists." The terrorists were already there, recruited during the decades we looked away. Our arrival on their turf just brought them out of the woodwork.

    As for Iraq, Osama & Co. realized full well how high we'd raised the stakes. They had to fight to prevent the emergence of a Middle Eastern democracy. As a result, they've thrown in their reserves - who've been slaughtered by our soldiers and Marines.

    The media obsesses on the price of this fight for us, but the terrorists have been forced to pay a terrible cost in trained fighters - while alienating fellow Muslims with their tactics. Pundits will argue forever over whether deposing Saddam was a diversion from the War on Terror, but the proof of its relevance - even if unexpected - is the unaffordable cost we've forced on al Qaeda.

    I'm not certain just how much al Qaeda has alienated other Muslims, as many still quite openly pine for the demise of the West in general and Israel and the United States in particular, but we certainly have made that obsession costly.

    When al Qaeda ‘s Number Two Ayman al-Zawahri releases a statement promising to bring Jihad to Israel and Arab Gulf States and advises not sending reinforcements to Afghanistan and Iraq, it reveals a pleading weakness in his cause.

    "Whatever you do, please don't send reinforcements to Afghanistan and Iraq," he might as well be saying. With the reconstituted Taliban being martyred courtesy of NATO troops by the hundreds, Zawahiri's threats of attacking elsewhere with any significant sustained force ring hollow. He is the Dark Knight of Monty Python's Holy Grail, threatening to "bite your kneecaps off" of King Arthur after his arms and legs have been forcefully removed.

    And indeed, many "limbs" of al Qaeda have been unceremoniously lopped off. Beyond bin Laden and al-Zawahiri himself, you'd be hard-pressed to find a "household name" in al Qaeda's leadership. The terrorist organization's most experienced planners, bomb-builders and experienced foot soldiers have been methodically hunted to near extinction, leaving dangerous but error-prone minor-leaguers terrorists to step up against increasingly savvy military and intelligence services around the world that continue to bleed al Qaeda on an almost daily basis.

    Continuing Phyrric "victories" by al Qaeda have reduced it to more of a terrorist public relations firm than a viable terrorist entity. Zawahiri can trumpet jihad all he wants to a dwindling supply of fellow believers, but when his message has to pack-muled out from a remote and hidden cave, it becomes increasingly difficult to see his often-promised victory as anything other than a delusional fantasy.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:35 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

    September 08, 2006

    How Quickly They Forget

    A Senate report on prewar intelligence in Iraq says that there is no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda. Predictably, Democrats are saying that this undercuts the President's justification for going to war.

    They are deadly wrong.

    Some intelligence experts might dispute the Senate's conclusions on Iraq, unless, of course, the Senate merely means that they didn't have evidence of Saddam and al-Zarqawi having tea.

    Regardless, President Bush sent us to war because Saddam had well-documented ties to many terrorist groups, making Baghdad host to a "Who's Who" of Islamic terrorists.

    Abu Abbas, mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking that saw an elderly, wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer murdered and thrown over the side, was a long-time guest of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and was captured near Baghdad as a direct result of our 2003 invasion.

    Abu Nidal, Palestinian terrorist mastermind led the Abu Nidal Organization, was another long-time terrorist-in-residence that died in Baghdad in 2002. The ANO was based in Iraq since 1998, and recieved training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from Iraq. They were shutdown by the invasion of Iraq after killing more than 900 people since 1974, and have not been heard from since.

    Abdul Rahman Yasin, the bomb builder in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, was given money and housing by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

    I have a simple question for Senate Democrats:

    How many more terrorist groups targeting and killing Americans would Saddam have had to support before you found an invasion worthwhile?

    And please, pardon me, if I don't expect an answer. Democrats haven't had an answer for terrorism in five years, and I do'nt expect they'll suddenly come up with one now.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:00 PM | Comments (27) | TrackBack

    September 07, 2006

    Palestinian Terrorists Get New Body Armor

    Via Hot Air, Snapped Shot alerts us to new body armor being used by using by Palestinian militants. Lets see if I can provide you with a close-up view of that armor.

    1

    Note that it is now available in two-ply.

    2

    And yes, they are being used as body armor as the original photo shows.

    At least three visibly armed militants are hiding among more than a dozen civilians in this photo, including the man on the far right who is targeting Israeli soldiers.

    Like their brethren in Gaza and in Lebanon, terrorists in the West Bank are willing to use civilians as shields, and though it is hard for our western mind to understand, the civilians themselves seem content with that arrangement.

    This battle left two so-called civilians dead and 11 wounded.

    Somehow, that doesn't upset me as much now as it once might have.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:22 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    September 06, 2006

    Bush Folds on Terrorist Bill of Rights

    Okay, I'm ready for impeachment now:

    The Bush administration on Wednesday said all detainees of the U.S. military would be ensured humane treatment, but some such as al Qaeda members would have fewer protections than other war prisoners.

    The Pentagon detailed its policies on prisoner treatment shortly before President Bush was to speak on the issue of detainees on Wednesday afternoon. ABC television reported Bush would announce the transfer of a dozen top terrorism suspects held at secret CIA prisons to Defense Department control.

    The Pentagon directive, which gives all prisoners protections as defined by the Geneva Conventions, follows heavy international criticism of the United States over military abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison and over its treatment and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

    Let's get a few facts straight about what terrorists are afforded under the Geneva Conventions, starting with the Third Geneva Convention (via Wikipedia):

    Article 2 specifies when the parties are bound by GCIII That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered by GCIII; That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party"; That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention."

    As al Qaeda and other terrorist groups do not act "under the strictures of the Convention" by torturing and beheading captives time and again, the rights of the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

    Terrorists are not afforded the protected Prisoners of War status, as they fail to meet the standards in Article 4.1.2:

    Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
    • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
    • that of carrying arms openly;
    • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    To be eligible for Geneva Protections, "militias and members of other volunteer corps" must fulfill all of these qualifications; terrorists satisfy none.

    Somewhere in North Waziristan, Osama bin Laden just laughed himself to death.

    Update: Tammy Bruce seems to be of a like mind, while AllahPundit searches for a silver lining that I hope is actually there.

    Update: Okay, I'm an idiot for beleiving this ABC News Report might reflect what the President actually said.

    ABC News has learned that President Bush will announce that high-value detainees now being held at secret CIA prisons will be transferred to the Department of Defense and granted protections under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It will be the first time the Administration publicly acknowledges the existence of the prisons.

    From there, I went on to the Reuters report I cited above with the thought that Bush gave Geneva rights to terrorists. It was the thrust of my entire post.
    And I was dead wrong:

    The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes. And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling's potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

    Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.

    It looks like a lot of us might have gotten blindsided by Bush's sudden and uncharacteristic agility. I could get used to being this kind of wrong.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:41 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    September 05, 2006

    Keeping the Peace?

    When Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora praised Hezbollah's war against Israel as "legendary" it was disconcerting. When his government refused to disarm Hezbollah, and instead opted for a "if we don't see it, we won't confiscate it (so please hide them)" approach to Hezbollah's weaponry, it was cause for concern.

    So what should we make of the Lebanese Army moving anti-aircraft guns into southern Lebanon?

    aa


    My guess is "nothing good."

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:39 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    The Reality We Live In

    Judd from Think Progress offers up a blistering response the upcoming ABC docudrama, Path to 9/11, from former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke:

    ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:
    1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

    2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

    3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

    In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

    The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.â€

    That is what Judd and Richard Clarke have to say.

    Decision '08 recalls a quite different and far more true reality by citing the 9/11 Commission Report which states unequivocally that on four separate occasions--Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000--U.S. National Security Advisor Sandy Burger was "an obstacle to action," preventing strikes that would have perhaps killed Osama bin Laden, decapitating al Qaeda well in advance of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that killed nearly three thousand innocent people.

    Judd at Think Progress and many other liberals would apparently like to pretend that Islamic terrorism was not a threat before George W. Bush was inaugurated. This collective selective amnesia is neither helpful nor realistic. Osama bin Laden was an identified threat well before George W. Bush took office, and his plan to attack on 9/11 is a direct result of watching President Clinton's headlong retreat "redeployment" from Somalia at the behest of the American Left's favorite defeatist, Congressman John Murtha.

    William Jefferson Clinton's Presidency spanned 1993-2001. During that time, al Qaeda was suspected to be the inspiration or the cause of a minimum of four separate terrorist attacks against Western targets.

    From NPR:

    Feb. 26, 1993: A massive bomb explodes in a garage below the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and more than 1,000 injured in the blast. Analysts cite some links to al Qaeda in the attack, though Osama bin Laden disavowed any connection.

    June 25, 1996: A powerful truck bomb explodes outside a U.S. military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding several hundred people.

    Aug. 7, 1998: Two bombs explode within minutes of each other near the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The blasts kill 264 people.

    Oct. 12, 2000: Seventeen American sailors are killed and 39 wounded by a bomb aboard a small boat that targets the USS Cole, a U.S. Navy destroyer refueling in Aden, Yemen.

    If the Clinton Administration had acted to attack bin Laden during any of the four chances it had between 1998 and 2000, there is the possibility that bin Laden's death could have averted the attacks that killed 264 and wounded thousands in Kenya and Tanzania. Osama bin Laden's death in any of the four possible attacks that Berger stopped may have kept 17 sailors from being killed in Yemen, and 389 other sailors from being wounded. But Clinton's administration did not act, and missed its chances, not just one time, but four.

    This is not to place all the blame for 9/11 on Clinton's administration, as every single administration from Nixon and Ford onward to today, both Democrat and Republican, "fed the beast" by not responding decisively and with overwhelming force to terrorist attacks. Clinton was the first president to face al Qaeda, but he was not the first President to fail against terrorism.

    George W. Bush's administration inherited 35+ years of bad decision-making which led up to the 9/11/01 attacks, and the ramifications of those 35 years of fundamentally "misunderestimating" the thread continue to ripple forward as terrorist organizations around the world act on the now long-held belief that their zealotry and willingness to die is stronger than our determination to live in freedom.

    The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and of that matter, in Lebanon) have both confused and infuriated the jihadis that are so certain that they can beat the West with outdated weaponry and tenacity, but the simple fact of the matter is that when Western politicians get out of the way and let their militaries fight, western forces have never lost in actions above platoon level in the entire War on Terror. Man-to-man, soldier-to-terrorist, we are quite simply better at killing them than they are killing us.

    The reality is that we can and do defeat jihadists when weak-willed politicians let our soldiers fight. It only remains to be seen if the politicians and apologists in free nations will allow us a chance to win.

    Update: From time to time, the most recent occupant of the White House shows us that he gets it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:40 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Too Cowardly to Even Call It Retreat

    Captain Ed notes this morning an open letter from Democrats calling for a "change of course" in Iraq.

    Their "plan" can be summed up in two words:

    • disengagement
    • retreat

    Specifically, they cite four points in their "new direction" for Iraq. They are:

    1. transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection;
    2. beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year;
    3. working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and
    4. convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.

    Lets look at what these steps actually propose.

    (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection;

    Democrats are stating that they would like for the U.S. military forces in Iraq to take a passive role in combating terrorism in Iraq. In this press release, They throw in the suggestion that U.S. forces would engage in "counter-terrorism," but that has precisely been their role from 2003 to the present. what Democrats are really advocating is their pre-9/11 mindset of counter-terrorism being a police function which is precisely the mindset practiced by U.S. presidents from both parties from the mid 1970s onward that has only emboldened terrorist groups. It was this mindset that inspired Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to think that slamming airliners into buildings on U.S soil would lead to his ultimate victory. Democrats are willing to concede this point to bin Laden, essentially stating they are willing to re-engage the same reactive approach that has consistently failed to stop the spread of terrorism for three decades. Trying something once and noting it does not work is one thing. Trying the same approach repeatedly even after that approach has been shown to be a categorical failure is the very definition of insanity.

    As if their return to the failed policy of reactive counter-terrorism policing isn't passive enough, they expand on just how passive a role they advocate, reducing the American role in Iraq to training, logistics, and force protection. They would have U.S forces train Iraqi forces, but not take them into combat. They would have U.S forces provide logistics and materials to move Iraqi units around, but not use these units to engage terrorists. They would reduce American forces--the best-trained and most experienced active duty military in the world today--to training Iraqis and baby-sitting convoys and hiding in bunkers in fixed installations. Force protection is a defensive measure, designed to minimize losses to specific locations, but does nothing to hunt down and kill terrorists. Quite simply, the Democratic plan is to concede Iraq to any terrorist group that wants to take it, as long as they don't directly attack our forces.

    (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year;

    Having conceded Iraq to any Tom, Dick, or Achmed with an Ak-47 and an attitude, the Democrats continue with their self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. As they would have our troops emasculated and reduced to a training and force protection role only, it makes no sense to have them there. Why have soldiers in-theater, if they aren't allowed to fight? And having stripping our soldiers of combat roles, they would do what no enemy force in Iraq above platoon level has ever done; force us into retreat. Of course, they call it "redeployment" to try to cover-up what it really is, but when you concede the country to the terrorists and pull all your soldiers of the battlefield and ship them elsewhere, it is a retreat. A retreat is the "withdrawal of troops to a more favorable position to escape the enemy's superior forces." Democrats apparently feel that terrorists are superior to the American military.

    (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.

    After stripping our soldiers of all offensive capability and then calling for their retreat, Democrats get to the real "meat" of their plan, one that hasn't changed in decades: appeasement politics. They steadfastly refuse to learn from the past, which shows that negotiating with terrorists only emboldens them. If you were a terrorist, and you saw Democrats neuter the American military and force them into retreat (something you yourself cannot do), any paper settlement is merely a formality on your way to complete victory. The Democrats, having shown that they are quite willing to take a defeat of American forces in trade for short term political gains at home, are merely looking for paper solutions so that they can have their "victory" over a weak American president. So by all means go ahead and sign anything they float your way. History shows you won't honor any agreement you sign (and in fact, not being a real government, how are they going to hold you to your agreement? "Sanctions?" Yeah, right). So by all means, go ahead and sign whatever "settlement" Democrats send you, recognizing it for what they truly are; an unconditional surrender of the mightiest military on the planet by the Democratic Party.

    The Democratic Party has often been criticized for not having a plan to win the war in Iraq, and this letter indicates that winning is not now and perhaps never has been part of their plan. All they offer here is a sugar-coated defeat, an abandonment of principles, and an abandonment of 25 million Iraqi men, women and children. Democrats are trying to tell you that running away from terrorists is how you beat them.

    As the fifth anniversary of the greatest testament to that failed strategy nears, I'm inclined to strongly disagree.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    September 02, 2006

    Waiter, There's a Jihadi In My Soup

    It looks like several more British "moderate Muslims" were close to deciding to "prove themselves," as Miss England says, as 14 men were arrested in a series of overnight raids.

    Armed police have arrested 14 men following anti-terror raids in London, including 12 arrests at a restaurant in the Borough area.

    Two people were held elsewhere in the city in what police said was an intelligence-led operation.

    Police said the arrests were not connected to the alleged transatlantic jet bomb plot or the 7 July attacks.

    An Islamic school near Tunbridge Wells has also been searched as part of the same operation.

    The Jameah Islameah property, on Catt's Hill near Crowborough, East Sussex, is an Islamic teaching facility for boys aged between 11 and 16.

    I'm shocked, shocked that an Islamic school may have been used to help plot terror attacks. And appalled. And verklempt, and I'm not even 100% sure what that word means. Most of those arrested, however, were taken into custody at a local halal Chinese restaurant called The Bridge to China Town. Halal food is, of course, food permissible according to Islamic diet restrictions.

    Sadly, you'll note that the BBC is so cowed by the "moderates" among them that they can't even directly mention the fact that these men were British-born Pakistani Muslims, preferring to let you infer the facts for the locational data provided.

    Great Britain may yet be saved, but the BBC has already been lost to enemy action.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:43 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    September 01, 2006

    Yeah, That'll Work...

    This is kind of like John Mark Karr reassuring you that Wayne Williams would be a great babysitter:

    U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Friday that Syria would step up border patrols and work with the Lebanese army to stop the flow of weapons to Hezbollah.

    Syria will increase its own patrols along the Lebanon-Syria border, and establish joint patrols with the Lebanese army "when possible," Annan said after meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus.

    Assad made no public comments after their meeting, but Annan spoke with reporters at the Damascus airport before he departed midday for Qatar.

    The U.N. resolution that halted fighting between Israel and Hezbollah calls for an arms embargo on the guerrilla group, and for Lebanon to "secure its borders and other entry points."

    Annan said Assad informed him that Syria would "take all necessary measures" to implement paragraph 15 of U.N. resolution 1701, which calls on countries to prevent the sale or supply of weapons to entities in Lebanon without the consent of the Lebanese government or U.N. peacekeepers.

    This is the same Syria that armed Hezbollah with medium-range rockets used in the recent conflict against Israeli civilian targets, the same Syria who's leader praised Hezbollah's Pyrrhic "victory." Now more than ever, the cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel merely appears to be a chance for both sides to rearm and reevaluate their tactics before the next conflagration.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Pretty/Stupid

    From the first Muslim Miss England:

    The first Muslim to be crowned Miss England has warned that stereotyping members of her community is leading some towards extremism.

    Hammasa Kohistani made history last year when she was chosen to represent England in the Miss World pageant.


    But one year on, the 19-year-old student from Hounslow feels that winning the coveted beauty title last September was a "sugar coating" for Muslims who have become more alienated in the past 12 months.


    She said: "The attitude towards Muslims has got worse over the year. Also the Muslims' attitude to British people has got worse.

    "Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more."

    "...moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway."

    According to Ms. Kohistani's logic, alcoholics should forego trying to get their lives back together, say, "the Hell, with it," and go ahead and drink because people expect them to be drunks.

    It is a troubling mindset, and one I hope is not widespread in western Muslim communities. If Muslim moderates star to embrace terrorism as a way of "proving themselves" to radicals within the nations they inhabit, current feelings of disassociation that they seem to presently feel will only worsen, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If an embrace of terrorism becomes widespread, or more likely, an appearance of the embrace of terrorism becomes widespread, crackdowns against Muslims will only worsen. It could perhaps lead to even worse tensions and violence if the rest of the British population feels significantly threatened.

    If Hammasa Kohistani wants to change public opinion and stereotypes against Muslims as she says elsewhere in the article, she needs to encourage Muslims to prove, time and again if necessary, that the violent fundamentalist way is not their own. British Muslims should respond to suspicions not by embracing terrorism, but by becoming the most vigilant fighters against it.

    A widespread "we might as well do it anyway" mindset that validates these stereotypes is precisely the wrong message to be sending.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    August 31, 2006

    I Didn't Know This Was Going To Be On the Quiz...

    But Dr. Perlmutter gives me an "A" all the same:

    I first talked about the blogger-driven battles over the Israel-Hezbullah war imagery in an essay for Editor & Publisher and then here and here in PBB.

    And the controversy continues--with a constructive object lesson for us all.

    I don't think blogs will replace big media, but the small blogger can, with moxie and smarts, shame the big boys and girls by doing the job that we trained the professionals to do in journalism school. Every good J-School teacher I know instructs her/his students to think, question and dig. Don't just accept the press release or the face value of an event. Scratch your head and ask: “Where can I go besides the usual sources to get the information that will better reveal the truth?â€

    Sometimes the answer is simple, and you think “Wow, why did nobody else think of that?†The answer is sadly that industrial journalism breeds laziness and routine. There are many hard working journalists out there; but the system undercuts their inventiveness and encourages them to walk the rut of what everybody else is doing.

    Not so with the nimble, one wo/man blog enterprise. Consider the case of Mr. Bob Owens, aka, "ConfederateYankee."

    As they say, read it all.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    August 30, 2006

    Hit-and-Run in California

    I'm admittedly late to commenting on the story of 29-year-old Omeed Aziz Popal, an Afghan native that went on a hit-and-run spree in San Francisco, wounding 14, after running down and killing a man in Freemont, California.

    The immediate conclusion that some jumped to was that this was a Left Coast replay of March's Jeep Jihad in Chapel Hill, where Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar decided to run-down UNC-Chapel Hill students because he did not like how Americans were treating Muslims.

    I don't think that the motives in this case are clear yet, but he had been reported missing three days ago, and there are early explanations range from saying that he was under a great deal of stress having recently gone through an arranged marriage in Afghanistan, to possibly being mentally ill by relatives.

    If it is indeed the case that Popal's family sent a mentally ill man into an arranged marriage, I hope that the bride can get a mulligan. Somehow, I doubt his claimed history of mental illness was revealed to his new in-laws.

    Michelle Malkin has the round-up.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    August 28, 2006

    Israel Deploys Top Secret "Fast Rust" Missiles

    Reuters claims this armored car was hit by two missiles from an Israeli helicopter.

    achit

    As you can see, Isreal's new missiles are quite different than the standard Hellfire and TOW ATGMs of the past, both of which, designed for tanks, would have minced an armored car such as this one. Ths armored car is said to have been hit not once, but twice by missiles, and the only apparent damage is a hole that seems to be surrounded by rust. Corrosion, or explosion?

    I think it is fairly obvious that if the Israelis did fire two missiles at this armor car, that the car did not take a direct hit. Tanks can't survive the ATGMs Israel uses on their helicopters, and armored cars have much thinner armor than tanks. It would have cut through one side, detonated, and left a shattered, burning hulk. There was no explosion, and even a dud would have completely punched through the vehicle, exiting the other side with a noticable hole. The photo below shows no such penetration on the opposite side.

    achit2

    Powerline has more. I'd consider the possibility of a near miss causing some damage, but this vehicle was not directly hit by any known missile, and I don't know of any weapons system that would cause a vehicle to apparently rust by the next morning.

    To put it mildly, I view the Reuters claims of an successful pair of Israeli missile strikes on this vehicle as highly unlikely.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:29 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

    August 25, 2006

    Cluster Bomb Inquiry?

    According to the New York Times, the United States has initiated an investigation into the use of cluster bombs in South Lebanon during the recent Israeli War against Hezbollah terrorists:

    The State Department is investigating whether Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.

    The investigation by the department's Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

    For those of you that might not be familiar with the concept of cluster munitions, they different than more traditional explosives in that instead of relying on one large explosive projectile or multiple large explosive projectiles to destroy a target, they deploy a shell or bomb containing many smaller grenade-like bombs (submunitions) over a wider area, saturating a larger area with one cluster munition, theoretically decreasing the number of large explosives needed to take out an area target, such as a troop concentration, or in this instance most likely in the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah, rocket-launching sites. It may be simpler to compare it to the difference between using a rifle and a shotgun.

    The recognized downside of cluster munitions are two-fold:

    • cluster munitions are designed as area weapons, and are not capable of a pin-point strike to their wide dispersal
    • the submunitions in traditional cluster bombs have a failure rate of between 2%-4% according to my subject matter expert, John Donovan. this means that between 2% and 4% of the submunitions fail to explode, essentially "mining" the area struck with unexploded ordinance

    This does not mean cluster bombs are "bad" any more than any other physical object can be "good" or "bad," but knowing the characteristics of such weapons prescribes how they should be used.

    It is generally accepted conventional wisdom that cluster munitions are acceptable area munitions against area targets such as troop and enemy vehicle or supply concentrations and certain kinds of entrenched positions. They are recognized as being dangerous to use in areas where civilians may fall victim to the immediate widespread blast pattern, or may return to encounter unexploded submunitions before engineering units can dispose of them. It is also not advisable to use cluster munitions in areas where you expect that your own troops may advance, as these same submunitions could cause casualties to friendly troops.

    It is worth noting that no munition of any design is "dud-proof," but cluster munitions are more prone to fail to detonate simply because they require a larger number of separate charges to work, and some more modern cluster submunitions are designed to self destruct to reduce risk to civilian and soldier alike.

    Back to the Times article:

    The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations in southern Lebanon, the officials said.

    David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said, “We have not been informed about any such inquiry, and when we are we would be happy to respond.â€

    Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.

    The agreements that govern Israel's use of American cluster munitions go back to the 1970's, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.

    A Congressional investigation after Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.

    Israeli officials acknowledged soon after their offensive began last month that they were using cluster munitions against rocket sites and other military targets. While Hezbollah positions were frequently hidden in civilian areas, Israeli officials said their intention was to use cluster bombs in open terrain.

    The question seems to be precisely what the language of any such agreement would be, especially in how the agreement describes what constitutes "clearly defined military targets."

    I'm merely pontificating here, but I suspect that if such an inquiry is underway, Israel will likely make the argument that a mobile missile launching platform constitutes a "clearly-defined military target." One could easily make a strong case that a mobile Katyusha rocket launcher away from a civilian concentration is a legitimate target, as shown in the this example from camera.org:

    kat

    This example of a short-range Qassam rocket firing site from weaponssurvey.com apparently located in an orchard would also seem to be a valid target:

    qassam

    And at least some of the cluster munitions used by Israel in Lebanon seem to have been targeted at rural areas, as is the case of this unexploded M-42 submunition found in a banana grove near (but not in) the village of El Maalliye. If this banana grove was away from homes and the banana grove was being used as a site to launch rockets against Israel, the Israelis can likely make a case that the use of cluster munitions in this instance is acceptable.

    This however, is much more difficult to justify. The munition is undoubtedly a cluster munition, and the site is said to be just 100 meters from the main Lebanese hospital in Tibnin. John Donovan identified this exact submunition as an M-42.

    The Times article states further:

    But a report released Wednesday by the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center, which has personnel in Lebanon searching for unexploded ordnance, said it had found unexploded bomblets, including hundreds of American types, in 249 locations south of the Litani River.

    The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42's, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77's, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63's, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85's, an Israeli-made submunition.

    What the Times article does not state is precisely where 1,835 were found.

    If the majority of these submunitions were found to be in locations consistent with what the agreement shows to be viable military targets, then Israel should be cleared fairly simply. If however, a substantial number of submunitions were recovered from villages and cities, then Israel's use of cluster munitions may have a legitimate basis to be called into question.


    It is important to note, however, that at this time only United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations (perhaps Hezbollah itself) have raised these allegations.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:47 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    August 24, 2006

    Zombie News

    Zombie's debunking of the Red Cross ambulance hoax hit primetime news, and as always, Allah has the video.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Hezbollah's White Phosphorus Lies: Part 2, the Conclusive Debunking

    Remember less than a month ago when I wrote this?

    It was only a matter of time before Hezbollah and their gullible dupes in the media began applying the Terrorist Propaganda Cook Book to the present war in Lebanon, accusing Israel forces of using chemical and other "illegal weapons" against civilians.

    The Sydney Morning Herald was all too willing to print these suspiciously vague allegations:

    Killed by Israeli air raids, the Lebanese dead are charred in a way local doctors, who have lived through years of civil war and Israeli occupation, say they have not seen before.

    Bachir Cham, a Belgian-Lebanese doctor at the Southern Medical Centre in Sidon, received eight bodies after an Israeli air raid on nearby Rmeili which he said exhibited such wounds.

    He has taken 24 samples from the bodies to test what killed them. He believes it is a chemical.
    Cham said the bodies of some victims were "black as shoes, so they are definitely using chemical weapons. They are all black but their hair and skin is intact so they are not really burnt. It is something else."
    "If you burnt someone with petrol their hair would burn and their skin would burn down to the bone. The Israelis are 100 per cent using chemical weapons."


    I stated that:

    The arguments are recycled, the evidence contrived; there is no credible evidence that chemical or white phosphorus weapons are being used to target Lebanese civilians, and it is telling that the media are all too willing to be led down this same path of lies again.

    It turns out that I was right (thanks to LGF for finding the video). The debunkings of the Greg Mitchell's of the world are coming so fast I can hardly keep up with them...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    August 23, 2006

    "Backdoor Draft?" Marines Respond

    Marines on the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) are being recalled to active duty consistent with the commitment they signed up for, and some of the predictably clueless are claiming that this constitutes a "backdoor draft," when it is of course nothing of the sort.

    Two very irritated Marine bloggers, Paul and Brando of Brandodojo ripped into these folks last night.

    From Paul in the comments of that post:

    People like to call this a "back door draft" because they're idiots and are intentionally using misleading rhetoric to bring up emotions from the Vietnam war, which is the last time a draft was used. They use "backdoor" as if the government is using some sneaky loophole, but this also isn't true. All a servicemember has to do is open up their SRB and look at their contract and read what it says. It's not even in "fine print." It's right there. In my case it says, plain as day, 5 years active, 3 years IRR.

    Back to my main point: The offensive part of the "backdoor draft" bullshit is that it's used by two groups of people: 1) People who have never served 2) People who have served and refuse to be accountable for their signature.

    I don't have a problem with people being pissed about it -- they're leaving their new lives or whatever and going to a shithole country where they might blow up -- everyone I know was pissed but they still went. That's what matters.

    In no uncertain terms, this is something that every Marine signs up for, and is clearly part of their commitment. Implying this is sneaky or underhanded behavior and not a standard part of a Marine's service commitment is simply dishonest.

    * * *

    Interestingly enough, liberal Ron Chusid cites the CNN article linked above and then states:

    If actions such as this continue the trend towards decreased voluntary recruits, this could be yet another way in which George Bush is underming [sic] our long term national security.

    But if you follow Mr. Chusid's link, you will find it is obsolete, being over a year old, and concerning only part of the year at that. I last wrote about military recruiting a little over a month ago, and it shows Ron's "truthiness" deserves to be called into question:

    Military recruiting for June once again met or exceeded goals across all four branches (h/t Paul at Adventurepan:
    • Marines: 105%
    • Army: 102%
    • Air Force:101%
    • Navy: 100%

    You'll note that the Marine Corps and Army, responsible for fielding most of the forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, have exceeded their goals by the largest margins, despite having higher target numbers than the other branches. They achieved this in the face of a mainstream media attempting to portray the military as rapists, racists, and murderers based up the alleged actions of a handful of men.

    Since October 1, all four branches have met or exceed their goals:

    • Army: 104%
    • Marines: 101%
    • Air Force: 101%
    • Navy: 100%

    Reserve forces recruiting has not been as even, but interesting enough, the Reserve and Guard forces most likely to be called upon for ground combat overseas (Army National Guard, Army Reserves, Marine Corps Reserves) have been the most successful in recruiting.

    One could argue that this also represents only part of the year, but it is the most current data; far more relevant than statistics over a year old that were not reflective of the overall year's total.

    About.com's U.S. Military Recruiting Statistics page confirms that recruiting for 2006 (so far) and 2005 were either met or exceeded for both years by all active duty branches. Funny how Mr. Chusid was unable to find those figures, isn't it?

    Chusid cherry-picked a story concerning several months in 2005, ignoring the overall 2005 and 2006 recruiting data that undermines his chosen storyline. Honesty is apparently not high on the list of Liberal Values.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:33 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBack

    F-16s Escort NW Flight to Amsterdam

    Could be something, could be nothing:

    A Northwest Airlines flight bound for India was escorted back to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport by F-16 fighter jets on Wednesday.

    The plane was turned around after "a couple of passengers displayed behavior of concern," according to Northwest Airlines.

    "Northwest is cooperating with the appropriate government officials," the company said in a statement.

    The DC-10 plane, bound for Mumbai, was carrying 149 passengers, Northwest said. Flight number 42 has been canceled and will be rescheduled for Thursday.

    The airport spokeswoman said the pilot had requested to return to Amsterdam and after the plane landed, there were some arrests.

    She would not specify if those arrested were passengers.

    Sources told Dutch journalist Marijn Tebbens that the disturbance was the result of some unruly passengers. The plane landed safely at 11:39 a.m. (5:39 a.m. ET), the sources said.

    This sounds supicious, but at this point we have very little concrete information to go on. I'm am curious about odd sentence from the airport spokeswoman, "She would not specify if those arrested were passengers."

    Who else would it be, an errant dogwalker?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:50 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    August 22, 2006

    Not Even Phoning It In

    Rusty and Allah are all over this example of just how lazy Hezbollah has become in their efforts to provide fake news. The official Hezbollah web site (with an appropriate Iranian URL) is showing a picture of a ship being ripped apart in an explosion. Hezbollah claims that the ship was an Israeli ship hit by a Hezbollah missile.

    Here is the picture as shown on Hezbollah's site:

    hezship

    And Hezbollah did hit an Israel ship, the INS Hanit, a Saar 5 class missile boat, most likely with an Iranian-made C-701 "Kosar" type missile, on July 14, 2006.

    This is the INS Hanit (photo credit: Sweetness & Light):

    idf-saar5-hit1

    Note the damage (most noticeably the scorch marks) near the waterline directly under the Hanit's helicopter hanger, roughly three-quarters of the way to the stern. Note also that while the ship was reported to have serious internal damage and four Israeli sailors died in the attack, the ship is largely intact, the keel unbroken, and the ship otherwise, from this view, externally undamaged, where the ship in the Hezbollah photo to has literally been broken by the blast, the aft half of the ship behind the explosion several degrees out of alignment with the fore.

    The two ships, as noticed by Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald-Sun, are not nearly the same.

    HMAS Torrens, a decommissioned Australian destroyer escort, was purposefully sunk in a torpedo test on June 14, 1999. If you look at first picture in the second row on this page, it becomes quite likely that Hezbollah stole the image from this wikipedia entry, cropped it, and then enlarged it to get their end result.

    A ship built in the mid 1960s and decommissioned in 1971 is not going to be mistaken for a modern vessel launched in 1994.

    Of course, seeing is believing.

    The INS Hanit (picture mirrored 180 degrees from above for comparative purposes):

    idf-saar5-hit1

    HMAS Torrens, just prior to the torpedo test:

    Mark_48_Torpedo_testing

    Not even close. You would expect that a recently unemployed Adnan Hajj would have been make it at least this close:

    idf-saar5-hit1

    These days, Hezbollah isn't even phoning it in.

    Update: Blue Crab Boulevard uncovers more Hezbollah pictures.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:37 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    Iran Assaults Oil Rig, Captures Crew

    I hope that the Left will condemn this obvious war for oil:

    A Romanian oil rig off the coast of Iran came under fire from an Iranian warship and was later occupied by Iranian troops, a company spokesman said.

    The Iranians first fired into the air and then fired at the Orizont rig, said GSP spokesman Radu Petrescu. Half an hour later, troops from the ship boarded and occupied the rig and the company lost contact with the 26 crew members shortly afterward.

    Petrescu said he had no information about any injuries or deaths. The Orizont rig has been moored near the Kish island in the Persian Gulf since October 2005, he told the Associated Press.

    Eugen Chira, the political consul at the Romanian Embassy in Tehran confirmed the incident, but provided few details.

    "Some forces opened fire. That an incident has happened is true. We have no details or the reason yet," he said.

    If this is the first stage of an attempt to shut down the Persian Gulf, the Iranian's picked an odd place to start, as Kish is to the northwest of the Straits of Hormuz.

    More as this develops.

    Update: This is still something of a "non-story," that I'm not seeing widely reported, for whatever reason. I'm not sure if it is a lack of information, or a determination by the news Powers That Be that this is a minor story. More info comes from Bloomberg, indicating that this might be a business/teritorial dispute:

    Iran attacked and seized control of a Romanian oil rig working in its Persian Gulf waters this morning one week after the Iranian government accused the European drilling company of ``hijacking'' another rig.

    An Iranian naval vessel fired on the rig owned by Romania's Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP) in the Salman field and took control of its radio room at about 7:00 a.m. local time, Lulu Tabanesku, Grup's representative in the United Arab Emirates said in a phone interview from Dubai today.

    [snip]

    Iran urged the United Arab Emirates last week to help it return another oil rig owned and operated by the Romanian company in the same waters close to the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's daily oil supply moves on tankers.

    Grup said it recovered its rig last week because of a contractual dispute with its Iranian client, Oriental Oil Kish.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suspended Oriental Oil's activities in 2005 on alleged corruption activity and ties to Halliburton Co. of the U.S. The U.A.E.-registered drilling company had signed a preliminary contract with Halliburton after winning an estimated $310 million contract to develop phases 9 and 10 of Iran's offshore South Pars gas reservoir.

    Mircea Geoana, the head of the Social Democratic Party, the main opposition party in Romania, called on the government to ``undertake all diplomatic measures necessary'' to persuade the Iranians to release the rig.

    He also called on President Traian Basescu in a news conference broadcast on Realitatea television to invite all political party heads to the presidential palace to "discuss what Romania's reaction will be to this provocation."

    You just knew Halliburton would get dragged into this, didn't you? I suspect that it is just a matter of time before the accusations start to fly that this is a set-up by the Bush Administration to use as a justification to go to war.

    Andy Sullivan, your newest conspiracy theory awaits...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:11 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    August 20, 2006

    When E.F. Hezbollah Speaks...

    ...people listen.

    I guess that answers this.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    August 19, 2006

    Photojournalism in Crisis

    David D. Perlmutter in Editor and Publisher:

    The Israeli-Hezbollah war has left many dead bodies, ruined towns, and wobbling politicians in its wake, but the media historian of the future may also count as one more victim the profession of photojournalism. In twenty years of researching and teaching about the art and trade and doing photo-documentary work, I have never witnessed or heard of such a wave of attacks on the people who take news pictures and on the basic premise that nonfiction news photo- and videography is possible.

    I'm not sure, however, if the craft I love is being murdered, committing suicide, or both.

    As they say, read the whole thing.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:15 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    August 18, 2006

    So Long, and Thanks for All the Fisk

    As the Islamic Armegeddon apparently approaches just four days hence,
    I thought I'd take this opportunity to mention all the thinks I'm going to miss as a result.

    Car Swarms
    Sadly, this uniquely Palestinian cultural curiosity is about to expire, along with those who practice it. I never quite understood the odd fascination with retrieving bits of flesh from martyrs "liberated" of their earthly chains courtesy of the Israeli Air Force, but it was an interesting custom to view all the same. I'll have to find another pointless expression of impotent rage to fill this void in my life. Is Randi Rhodes still on the air?

    "Differently-Abled" Suicide Bombers
    Say what you will about their people skills and willingness to accept those of other beliefs, the various terrorist groups in the Middle East have always believed in diversity, even allowing the mentally infirm and gullible a direct shot at paradise.

    If only we cared enough to extend equal opportunities across all strata and mental levels of our society, perhaps we could be as great a culture. Then again, Cynthia McKinney was elected twice, so perhaps we're doing better in this regard than I originally thought.

    Sand
    The price is certainly going to go up. Of course, glass will become much more economical, so it might balance out.

    Arab Media
    I'll be honest: they've provided me a lot of material in past weeks, and I'm going to miss their fine original craftsmanship, which was openly appreciated in our own media outlets as well. Bill Keller is going to have to find a new mentor, but no doubt he'll land on his feet on a nice marble floor. So long, Qana Chameleons, and thanks for all the Fisk.


    Hummus
    No, not really.

    You may look at this admittedly short list and ask, "hey, what about all the things in the "Great Satan" and the "Little Satan" that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadabbracadabrajad has promised to destroy as he brings forth the holy cleansing fire of the Hidden Imam?"

    And I'll look back at you with a smile on may face and say those four sweet, magic words, "North Korea-designed missiles."

    I'll see you on the 23rd.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:09 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    Southern Hospitality

    The Lebanese Interior Minstry is outraged over a video showing Lebanese soldiers offering tea to Israeli soldiers during the invasion of Marjeyoun on August 10. The Interior Ministry is ordering the base commander, Gen. Adnan Daoud, to be placed under arrest.

    Here is an account of what transpired via CNN:

    There have been conflicting accounts of what happened at Marjeyoun.

    In the video, two Israeli tanks roll up to the gate of the Marjeyoun garrison, where a white surrender flag flutters outside the barracks.

    Inside, Lebanese soldiers hold trays with glasses of tea, which they offer to the Israelis. The encounter appears merely social.

    However, it is possible that unpleasant parts of the video were deleted during editing.

    This is in opposition to accounts of what happened when Israeli soldiers arrived according to several Arab media outlets.

    Arab-language network Al-Jazeera has quoted Hezbollah as saying "violent battles" took place with their militants, and Arab news networks Al-Manar and Al-Arabiya reported at least two Israeli tanks were destroyed in the fighting.

    Apparently, the new Arab media definition of "destroyed" has been expanded to cover the spilling of milk and sugar on army vehicles. That, or they are lying, and who would expect that from professional media organizations?

    While I certainly wouldn't want American soldiers extending this amount of hospitality to foreign invaders, I can't say I blame the Lebanese. They are, after all, only following our example.

    The Administration has taken the "tea and cookies" route in dealing with the invasion of illegal immigrants across our southern border for years, so perhaps this model behavior explains this exchange between the Israeli and Lebanese commanders on the scene, as captured on the video:

    At one point in the video, Daoud and an Israeli soldier have the following exchange, as translated by CNN's Octavia Nasr:

    Daoud: "Don't we need to tell our bosses?"

    Israeli soldier: "Tell whoever you want."

    Daoud: "We need to brief them on what happened."

    Israeli soldier: "We briefed (U.S. President) Bush. You brief whoever you want."

    Daoud: "We need to brief Bush too."

    While translating democracy to Arab culture continues to be problematic of the President, at least it appears his overly friendly "southern hospitality" is finding admirers around the world.

    That, or Lebanese soldiers with small arms don't feel like getting themselves killed for nothing. And after all Hezbollah has done for Lebanon...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:37 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    August 16, 2006

    "I'm Going to Die, Aren't I?"

    Almost five years after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in lower Manhattan, the release of 1,613 emergency calls made under that bright blue September sky are like ripping scars:

    "Listen to me, ma'am," that operator told a panicky Melissa Doi during a 20-minute phone call. "You're not dying. You're in a bad situation, ma'am."

    A portion of Doi's end of the conversation was played for jurors in April at the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

    "I'm going to die, aren't I?" Doi asked the dispatcher.

    "Ma'am, just stay calm for me, OK?" the dispatcher said. The conversation ended with the operator trying vainly to speak with Doi, a financial manager for IQ Financial Systems: "Not dead, not dead," the operator said to no response. "They sound like deep sleep."

    The phone line cut out. Doi never made it out of the World Trade Center.

    "Oh, my lord," said the operator, whose words to Doi were previously not made public.

    At Hot Air, AllahPundit managed to listen to about 90 seconds of Doi's 24-minute call before he had enough.

    I admire him for getting as far as he did.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:25 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    Reality Check

    While the war between Hezbollah and Israel seems to be on an increasingly temporary hiatus, the public relations battle over who actually came out ahead in this latest Arab-Israeli conflict seems to depends on whether or not you give military successes or temporary political successes more weight.

    Leftist poster boy in favor of Islamic oppression, Robert Fisk:

    The truth is Israel opened its attack on Lebanon by claiming the Lebanese government was responsible for Hizbollah's attack - which it clearly was not - and that its military actions would achieve the liberation of the captured soldiers.

    This, the Israelis have signally failed to do. The loss of 40 soldiers in just 36 hours and the successful Hizbollah attacks against Israeli armour in Lebanon were a disaster for the Israeli army.

    The fact that Syria could bellow about the "achievements" of Hizbollah while avoiding the destruction of a blade of grass inside Syria suggests a cynicism that has yet to be grasped inside the Arab world. But for now, Syria has won.

    Was Lebanon's government—the same government which refuses to disarm Hezbollah—aware of Hezbollah's plan to kidnap Israeli soldiers?

    Fisk says they weren't complicit.

    Hasan Narallah, leader of Hezbollah, indicates otherwise (my bold):

    I told them on more than one occasion that we are serious about the prisoners issue and that this can only solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Of course, I used to make hints in that respect. Of course I would not be expected to tell them on the table I was going to kidnap Israeli soldiers in July. That could not be.

    [Bin-Jiddu (Al-Jazeera)] You told them that you would kidnap Israeli soldiers?

    [Nasrallah] I used to tell them that the prisoners' issue, which we must solve, can only be solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

    [Bin-Jiddu (Al-Jazeera)] Clearly?

    [Nasrallah] Clearly. Nobody told me: no, you are not allowed to kidnap Israeli soldiers. I was not waiting for such a thing. Even if they told me no you are not allowed [nothing would change]. I am not being defensive. I said that we would kidnap Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the key political leaders in the country.

    To call Robert Fisk a liar would be redundant.

    Is the loss of 40 soldiers in 1 1/2 days a "disaster" as Fisk states? To the family members of the soldiers it undoubtedly is, but otherwise, the lost of 40 men in a close quarters ground assault against the entrenched positions is hardly a disaster, even if the overall outcome of the battle was not the total destruction of Hezbollah in South Lebanon. "We won because we didn't all die" is hardly the most convincing victory speech for Hezbollah and their Syrian and Iranian patrons, not matter how the politics of the situation are spun.

    Of course, that is just the political angle played up by Hezbollah's supporters.

    Let's look at another view, based on the facts:

    Hizbollah suffered a defeat. Their rocket attacks on Israel, while appearing spectacular (nearly 4,000 rockets launched), were unimpressive (39 Israelis killed, half of them Arabs). On the ground, Hizbollah lost nearly 600 of its own personnel, and billions of dollars worth of assets and weapons. Israeli losses were far less.

    While Hizbollah can declare this a victory, because it fought Israel without being destroyed, this is no more a victory than that of any other Arab force that has faced Israeli troops and failed. Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel for over half a century, and Hizbollah is the latest to fail. But Hizbollah did more than fail, it scared most Moslems in the Middle East, because it demonstrated the power and violence of the Shia Arab minority. Sunni Arabs, and most Arabs are Sunnis, are very much afraid of Shia Moslems, mainly because most Iranians are Shia, not Arab, and intent on dominating the region, like Iran has done so many times in the past. Hizbollah's recent outburst made it clear that Iran, which subsidizes and arms Hizbollah, has armed power that reaches the Mediterranean. This scares Sunni Arabs because a Shia minority also continues to rule Syria (where most of the people are Sunni). The Shia majority in Iraq, which have not dominated Iraq for over three centuries, is now back in control.

    Hizbollah did enjoy a victory in its recent war, but it was over Sunni Arabs, not Israel.

    Two different reactions, one based in leftist cant sympathetic to terrorists, and another based on the actual physical damage and the political resonance felt throughout the region. At the end of the day, I think the Israelis came out far better in their "defeat" than did Hezbollah's military wing in their corpse-riddled "victory."

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:39 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    August 12, 2006

    A Ringer in Qana?

    Ah, Qana... the staged massacre that won't go away.

    Bernice S. Lipkin, editor of Think Israel wrote to let me know that I was one of several bloggers cited in her newest article, The Bloggers Take on The Qana Massacre. It's worth a read if you haven't been following the story, and probably a nice way to tie everything together if you have.

    Due in part to this article and Kathy Gannon's shamefully lightweight defense of AP's reporting (thinly veiled as an article about Slam Daher, AKA "Green Helmet"), I decided to revisit the Qana photostream on Yahoo!, when I noticed something that hadn't quite caught my eye before.

    This photo got my attention.

    longsleeve

    A female victim is being carried out of the naturally lit, open-air basement. Her legs are covered with a white sheet and her torso with a black one, but an armed encased in a black-full length sleeve all but points at the cameraman.

    And on the third finger of her left hand, what do you see?

    ringer

    A simple band of gold. A wedding ring?

    Aren't wedding bands are Christian tradition?

    The 28 named dead were all reported to belong to the same Shiite Muslim family.

    Update: Could be dead wrong on this; I dont know. I figured it was better to put it out there and let folks debate it.

    Update: CY reader Bruce sends me this link, which seems to indicate that the use of wedding rings in Muslim culture is a flagrant violation of their cultural norms:

    The following are some of the practices that are meticulously carried out during matrimonial affairs despite the fact that they are either expressly forbidden in Shariah, or have no bases in Islam:

    The engaged couple meet at a public gathering where the boy holds the girl's hand and slips a ring onto her finger whilst the two look romantically at each other. This act is void of modesty and completely [sic] foreign to Islamic culture. It is furthermore, a flagrant violation of the Quranic Law of Purdah. It is an evil innovation of the godless west , and those indulging in it should take cognizance of the Prophet's stern warning that "those who imitate others will rise on the Day of Judgement as of them".

    If this is correct, then the use of wedding rings in the strictly Shiite Hezbollah-dominated culture of south Lebanon very unlikely, begging the question, "where did this body, with an apparent wedding band, come from?"

    Now more than ever, I strongly suspect this body, among others, may have been "planted" at Qana.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:01 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

    August 11, 2006

    From the Front

    Michael Totten podcasts live from the Israeli/Lebanese border as a major Israeli offensive is about to give in.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Precarious Road

    Michael Yon issues a stark warning about the growing civil war in Iraq. His comments are disturbing, to put it mildly, but I trust his analysis. We have soldiers and commanders on the ground that know how to succeed, and it seems they are not being allowed to complete their mission.

    I've made it apparent in the past that I've had my disagreements with the present Administration, and while I've been impressed with the efforts of our soldiers on the ground, the leadership—primarily the political leadership—seems to have misjudged how best to conduct this war time and again, and quite frankly, seems on the verge of blowing it if they haven't already.

    I think it is time for Donald Rumsfeld to consider retiring. He presided over two very successful and very different military invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, winning each handily with minimal loses to men and equipment on both sides. I think it highly unlikely two countries the size of Afghanistan and Iraq can easily be dispatched as well by any other nation, and Rumsfeld ran two excellent invasion campaigns. The performance of our individual soldiers and commanders on the ground have also been phenomenal as well, and I cannot say enough about their professionalism or the degree of restraint and respect for civilian life with which they have fought these on-going wars.

    But I do doubt how our political leadership have run the occupations and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan after we established a large degree of control over these nations. Too many mistakes have been made.

    The Sunni insurgency and their al Qaeda allies have been dealt crippling blows during the rebuilding of Iraq, but no rational person with any knowledge of history expects them to completely go away for years to come. But during this same time, Kurdish forces in the north have been allowed to engage in raids into Turkey with little or no repercussions, setting a stage where Turkey may invade northern Iraq. Shiite militias in Baghdad and southern Iraq have been allowed to exist and strengthen ties with Iran. The country is on the verge of collapsing into sectarian genocide, and our political leadership doesn't seem to have the stomach to crack down on these groups with the force necessary to literally kill the private sectarian armies that are ripping the country apart.

    The Administration isn't wholly to blame for the situation in Iraq—it is after all their country and they are the ones killing each other—but it is responsible for Iraq to the point where some people have come to view private armies instead of a national government is in their best interests, as many Iraqis obviously do. The person most directly responsible for these failures in Iraq are not the soldiers on the ground, but their senior leadership in the Pentagon, and the man sitting at the desk of the Secretary of Defense. It is his job to run the military's wars, and he has allowed Iraq to reach its present state.

    Perhaps it isn't entirely Rumsfeld's fault—he does take orders from the President, after all—but he is most directly in charge of a situation growing increasingly out of control, and I think it is time to have a fresh set of eyes look at the problem, and seek a better resolution. We must win in Iraq, and by "we", I mean the coalition and the Iraqi people. Their lives matter to me. They deserve a chance to live in a society without fear.

    We cannot win this war for the Iraqi people by withdrawing. The "nediots" chanting on a Connecticut stage, and mewling around the anti-victory left, refuse to address the genocide that could certainly occur if we heed their calls for a headlong, cowardly retreat. And yet, we cannot win by slowly reacting or failing to act to changing situations. The 25 million people of Iraq deserve the free nation they braved bombs and bullets to vote for, and we owe it to them as much as to ourselves to make sure they succeed.

    Our present top level military leadership is failing at that task, and we need fresh eyes on the ball. I thank Donald Rumsfeld for his many years of hard work and dedication to our great nation, but I think it is time for him to pursue other opportunities.

    We owe that to our Iraqi allies.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:22 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

    Flipside of the Ghost War

    I spoke several days ago about the Ghosts in the Media Machine, and how media coverage of the war between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon is heavily slanted in favor of Hezbollah.

    Scan the photos coming out of Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, and you'll see and unending stream of dramatic photos of dead women and children and anguished rescue workers climbing through the remains of bombed-out residential buildings, and you will see heart-rending photos of toys in the rubble. You will see mourning. You will see pain. You will see a civilian infrastructure in tatters.

    What you will not see, except in very rare cases, is Hezbollah.

    There is a flipside to that coverage as well, coming from the same photostreams. Photographers chronicling the war from the Israeli side of the conflict also seem to have their own agenda, geared toward the same end.

    The photos of Israel's participation in this war are interesting in that they are heavily invested in showing the army component of the Israeli Defense Forces in an odd light.

    There is an old maxim that says life in any military is very much a "hurry up and wait" prospect, where soldiers experience an existence that intersperses long periods of boredom with short, intense periods of combat. The photos coming out of Lebanon and northern Israel certainly capture the boredom aspect of military life, to an extent that seems contrived. The same photostream that has provided the scenes of dead and dying Lebanese civilians and bombed out buildings shows a IDF army on the ground that seems to spend a considerable amount of time marching in an out of Lebanon, or sitting around waiting for something to happen. Time and again, the photos show soldiers that seem equally spent and bored... or worse. Certainly, a large part of the IDF soldier's life in this war is sitting around waiting for something to happen, but what this war is not providing scenes of IDF soldiers engaged in the intense, often close-quarters ground combat that has caused most of the IDF's casualties and many more Hezbollah casualties on the ground.

    We do not see photographers following the IDF into action; we have not a single photojournalist comparable to a Michael Yon following IDF soldiers into close combat. We have no Kevin Sites embedded with IDF forces as they clear enemy villages (as a side note, while Sites was vilified by many for shooting the footage of a U.S. Marine killing a wounded insurgent in Fallujah, the Marines he was embedded with seem to have no hard feeling, and Sites himself certainly had no animus towards the Marines). There are no stories telling of the bravery or selflessness that so many soldiers display in their character in the heart of war, no stories of individual courage, though almost certainly these events have transpired.

    Instead, the media covering Israel's army seems focused on showing the bored, the wounded, and the dead. Proof is simple enough to find. At the time this post was written, the first 15 pages of the Yahoo! News photostream showed 57 photos of Israeli soldiers and their families, some of them duplicates.

    Eight photos showed Israeli military vehicles driving, nine showed Israeli soldiers walking. 15 pictures showed Israeli soldiers sitting, or otherwise stationary. Four photos showed wounded IDF soldiers being evacuated. Nineteen photos--the most of any category--were focused on the death of Israeli soldiers and the anguish of their families and friends. One photo showed an IDF artillery round being fired.

    Only one photo--a single, solitary photo--showed an IDF soldier in action.

    If the IDF itself is not allowing media to accompany soldiers into Lebanon, this perception of a feeble, ineffective army is proof that the IDF itself does not know how to fight a postmodern media war, and the Israelis have only themselves to blame. If, however, the IDF will allow embedded photographers and journalists to accompany their army into Lebanon (and the photo linked above of an IDF soldier advancing in Qlai'a suggests that it does), and the media is refusing to either accompany IDF forces, or else refuses to distribute the stories and images they gather, then we have something else entirely.

    An argument can be made that the media photos coming out of Lebanon and Israel of the IDF's ground forces are meant to show an ineffective force that spends most of its time sitting around doing very little when it isn't burying its soldiers. Obviously, "something" is occurring between the sitting and the dying, and the world's media is failing to tell that story.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:47 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    Ordinary, Average Guys

    average

    Noting really wrong with this photo out of Lebanon, but the caption is, well, slightly misleading:

    Palestinians, in the Bedawi refugee camp near the port city of Tripoli in north Lebanon, collect leaflets dropped by Israeli warplanes August 10, 2006. REUTERS/Omar Ibrahim

    Just normal, everyday Palestinians. On a stroll with AK-47s assault rifles and military load-bearing equipment (LBE) to carry more rifle magazines and grenades, like they would in say, New York or London.

    Reuters: the gift that keeps on giving.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:50 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    August 10, 2006

    Major Terror Plot Foiled

    By now, I'm relatively certain you've heard of a immense terror plot that has been foiled in Great Britain, where between 6-10 international flights (some early reports stated as many as 20) from Great Britain to the United States were targeted for attack. The plotters were apparently intent on using liquid explosives disguised as beverages to detonate the flights in mid-air.

    United, American, and Continental flights to New York, Washington DC, and California were specificly mentioned as being targeted. As many as 50 suspected terrorists may have been involved in the plot, and it is not clear if all have been captured. Follow media reports and blog reaction to this story at Pajamas Media and Hot Air. Ace has good round up as well.

    So, what do we make of this?

    First, we're still short of a lot of details. What we can say with a fair degree of certainty is that a group of Muslim terrorists attempted to carry out the mass murder of western civilians on a scale that, if it had been successfully carried out, could have exceeded the carnage of September 11, 2001. The number of casualties would have been determined not only by the number of people onboard the targeted planes, but also where the terrorists decided to detonate the planes. A bomb detonated on a plane over the Atlantic would most likely kill only those on board; a plane detonated shortly after takeoff or landing on a flight path over populated areas could have the potential to take lives on the ground, as did American Airlines Flight 587 when it crashed into Belle Harbor, Queens, after taking of from JFK International Airport in New York on November 12, 2001.

    We also know that this plot is very similar to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's disrupted al Qaeda plot to bomb 11 planes in the mid 1990s.

    More as this develops.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    August 08, 2006

    Body Shop Bombed?

    This is just surreal:

    staged

    The caption reads:

    Lebanese civil defense rescuers, try to remove two blanket-wrapped bodies, found trapped under debris and concrete of the destroyed buildings, attacked late Monday by Israeli airstrike, in the southern Beirut suburb of Chiah, Lebanon, Tuesday Aug. 8, 2006. The raid on the Muslim southern suburb next to a Christian neighborhood killed at least 15 people, police officials said. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

    The bodies were found already wrapped in blankets under the debris of the building.

    I'm trying to think of rational reasons that Lebanese would keep pre-packaged corpses in their homes, and I'm coming up with nothing. Nada. Zip.

    One irrational explanation is that some bodies are being saved by Hezbollah to use in photo ops at a later date, and that the Hezbollah Body Shop (for lack of a better term) got hit, and buried those that should already have been buried.

    But that's just nuts. Hezbollah would never use corpses to stage a media event.

    Ever.

    Update: Same photographer, different angle, similarly-worded caption:

    Lebanese civil defense rescuer directs a buldozer as he stands next to a two blanket-wrapped bodies, center, found trapped under the destroyed buildings, which were attacked late Monday in an Israeli airstrike, in the southern Beirut suburb of Chiah, Lebanon, Tuesday Aug. 8, 2006. The raid on the Muslim southern suburb next to a Christian neighborhood killed at least 15 people, police officials said. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

    And another.

    So either he really does mean to imply the bodies were blanket-wrapped when found, or his preciseness with the English language is right up there with Adnan Hajj's PhotoShop skills.

    Further Update It seems Malla was also one of the photographers that took one of the pictures of Twice-Bombed Lady, and was hanging out with with fired Reuters stringer Adnan Hajj, he of the questionable llama picture, among others.

    Update: Dig this.

    From Brian Denton, a photographer in Lebanon, at photography forum LightStalkers:

    i have been working in lebanon since all this started, and seeing the behavior of many of the lebanese wire service photographers has been a bit unsettling. while hajj has garnered a lot of attention for his doctoring of images digitally, whether guilty or not, i have been witness to the daily practice of directed shots, one case where a group of wire photogs were choreographing the unearthing of bodies, directing emergency workers here and there, asking them to position bodies just so, even remove bodies that have already been put in graves so that they can photograph them in peoples arms. these photographers have come away with powerful shots, that required no manipulation digitally, but instead, manipulation on a human level, and this itself is a bigger ethical problem.
    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:53 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack

    August 07, 2006

    Houla Oops

    Read about the "horrific massacre" at Houla, Lebanon while you still can:

    Lebanon's prime minister said Monday an Israeli airstrike on the southern village of Houla left 40 people dead.

    "An hour ago, there was a horrific massacre in the village of Houla in which more than 40 martyrs were victims of deliberate bombing," Fouad Siniora told Arab foreign ministers in Beirut.

    A Lebanese law enforcement source told CNN an estimated 60 people were trapped in the rubble of homes in the Houla area.

    Six homes were destroyed, and fires engulfed the area, the source said.

    The Israel Defense Forces said it is checking the reports on Houla, noting that it has warned residents for the past two weeks to leave.

    Siniora choked back tears, wiping his eyes as he spoke, The Associated Press reported. The ministers applauded.

    The deaths Prime Minster Siniora claims as the result of an Israeli air strike haven't materialized to any great extent in the rest of the world's press, an odd circumstance for such a large loss of civilian life. As of now, the only other online mention I can find of the story is from the AP's Sam Ghattis, and no photos or first-hand reporting seems yet available from the scene. As of now, we have only Siniora's word that these deaths took place.

    Looking around the various news sites, it seems that few news organizations are willing to give Siniora's word the benefit of the doubt, indicating perhaps that news organizations snake-bitten by the still unresolved questions about Qana and the quite thoroughly resolved frauds of Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj, are not willing to give the terrorist-friendly Prime Minister the instant credibility they might have eight days ago.

    The trust of the people that the media needs to survive has been severely damaged in their often one-sided and occasionally staged and faked coverage of the war in Lebanon and Israel. The western media has been finally forced into looking at the reliability of their foreign reporters, photographers, and even the public pronouncements of government officials, and they do not seem to like what they see. A propaganda war is only effective if people are willing to swallow the information they are given, and at this point, it seems even the media is gagging on the taqiyya that seems to flow so freely in Lebanon's fog of war.

    It is of course possible that once reporters reach the scene in Houla that the stories will once again begin to flow lamenting the loss of innocent Lebanese because of indiscriminate Israeli bombing, but that moment has not yet come, and even the tearful display from Lebanon's Prime Minister seems not enough to sway a skeptical press.

    Hezbollah and their allies still retain the support of Iran and Syria, but seem to be losing, temporarily at least, the support of their nominally reliable propaganda allies in the western media, and that might be the most important division of this war so far.

    Update: Siniora has retracted his claim.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:50 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    I Question the Timing

    From Amnesty International:

    The results of the IDF investigation state that the IDF "operated according to information that the building was not inhabited by civilians". Yet survivors of the attack interviewed by Amnesty International researchers in Qana shortly after the bombing, stated that they had been in the building for some two weeks and that their presence must have been known to Israeli forces whose surveillance drones frequently flew over the village.

    So according to Amenesty International, the extended family hit in the Qana air strike did not move into the building until after the war started. What father purposefully moves their family into a combatant neighborhood in an active war zone? Certainly not someone who wants to keep them alive.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Is Lebanon Faked?

    This lady is a fraud, as is this jet's "bombs", this burning koran, this ambulance and llama—yes, I said llama—and this bombed city. In each and every one of these events, the professional media's photographers either failed to capture true events, or were complicit in faking events. In the so-called "media war," the media has clearly chosen sides.

    Against that backdrop, the Hezbollah staging and media complicity in the Qana air strike of last weekend seems well within the realm of possibility.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    August 04, 2006

    Shadi Business?

    When I saw Dan Reihl's post noting that refrigerated trucks came from Tyre before the media arrived after daybreak, I thought that the trucks were suspicious.

    Now IsrealInsider (h/t A.J. Strata) is reporting that the Lebanese rescue worker known by many simply as "Green Helmet" that appeared in so many of photos brandishing a dead toddler by the neck, is a man named Abu Shadi.

    In the days leading up to the Israeli attack on Qana, Abu Shadi, a mortician for the hospital in Tyre, had been driving refrigerated trucks packed with dead bodies.

    Could it be another man named Abu Shadi? Perhaps. Another Shadi with a certified-by-the-media truckload of corpses? Not very likely.

    The odd and unanswerable continue to add up in Qana.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:06 AM | Comments (25) | TrackBack

    August 02, 2006

    IDF Investigating Qana Because of Blog Reports

    From the Jerusalem Post:

    The IDF is looking into allegations raised over the past few days by several pro-Israel, Jewish and conservative Weblogs that Hizbullah may have staged aspects of the Kana tragedy on Sunday, in which some 60 Lebanese bodies were removed from a building that collapsed seven hours after being hit in an Israel Air Force strike.

    The dead were mainly children, women and elderly people.

    The International Committee of the Red Cross Mission in Israel said Tuesday that it would inform its Swiss headquarters about the allegations and seek to clarify the questions raised.

    Israel has acknowledged hitting the building, and said 150 Katyushas had been fired from the village in the previous 20 days, with Hizbullah hiding rocket launchers in civilian buildings there. Israel said it did not know civilians were inside the building and expressed sorrow over the tragedy.

    The IDF is investigating questions raised by Confederate Yankee, EU Referendum, and other blogs and web sites.

    The questions include:


    • When did the building collapse, and what caused the collapse?
    • Were the photos taken of the victims staged?
    • Why do the bodies of the victims not show the crushing injuries one would expect in a building collapse?
    • Why weren't journalists allowed near the building?
    • Why is their such a discrepancy in the initial casualty figures cited to the world (55-60) and the number of bodes recovered by the Lebanese Red Cross (28)?
    • Who is the man known as “Green Helmet†who was in so many of these pictures, and why was he in other, similar photos dating back to 1996?

    The International Committee of the Red Cross is currently preparing a report based upon data collected by the Lebanese Red Cross.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:27 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

    August 01, 2006

    Hezbopology

    Catch the fever!

    Thanks to a tip from reader Euzious and Laura Rozen's fine War and Piece blog, and in a bit of redemption after a day-and-a-half of Israeli-coordinated counterattacks from trolls spewing right wing talking points in support of the IDF, it now turns out that the IDF's justification for bombing Qana and the killings of dozens of women and children were lies. Haaretz reported today that as the government investigates what happened, the Air Force has changed its story:
    It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time. The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday. The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike.

    In other words, hitting that building was “in the planâ€, and not done in response to a recent attack.

    Israeli forces actually had the temerity to fire on a position known to have fired rockets in the past, but not on the day of attack. Steve Soto of The Left Coaster of course ignores that the site was used to store munitions just 24 hours prior to that. Apparently, the new Liberal Rules of War imposes a shot clock.

    But Soto is just getting warmed up:

    As for those right wing talking points about Hezbollah bringing the building down hours after the IDF attack, that appears to be a lie also:
    The IDF account and those of survivors present contradictory versions of the Qana deaths. The IDF said that there is an unexplained gap of about seven hours between the IAF strike and the first report that the building had collapsed. Residents' accounts say only 10 minutes went by between the strike and the collapse. The survivors say rescue teams arrived only in the morning, as night conditions made the rescue mission difficult. The Red Cross in Tyre received a call for help only in the morning, explaining their late arrival. Sami Yazbek, chief of the Tyre department of the Red Cross, said his office received a call only at 7 A.M. The ambulances were further slowed by the bombed roads leading to Qana. The media first heard of the bombing at 8 A.M. The foreign press quoted Lebanese sources explaining the late announcement, saying the electricity and phones in the village of Qana were almost entirely cut-off by IAF attacks. [snip] The IAF admits the village was struck three times between Saturday night and Sunday morning. Two bombs were dropped on the building in the first strike. Channel 10, however, said on Monday that the initial investigation shows the bombs did not immediately explode, and an explosion in the early morning caused the casualties.

    In other words, you can't trust a thing the IDF says, or any crap from the pro-Israeli right wing talking points.

    So we have a named IDF Air Force Brigadier General named Amir Eshel stating that the building did not collapse for seven hours after the attack, and to counter, we have unnamed "civilains" who admit to being literally-related to the terrorists in their midst, dictating a more favorable timeline, despite the fact that the call to the Red Cross seems to more closely correspond with the Israeli account.

    Who earns your trust, anonymous Hezbollah supporters, or named senior officials of the IDF and the Red Cross?

    For Hezbollah apologists like this, hugging the enemy is second nature.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:38 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

    Qana's Unresolved Questions

    Yesterday's attempt to analyze the Israeli air strike on Qana, subsequent building collapse seven hours later, the Hezbollah propaganda campaign that resulted, and the media's seeming inability to ask hard questions about the events led to a flurry of analysis in the blogosphere yesterday.

    I asked questions here and here, first questioning why the media obediently provided Hezbollah's point of view while ignoring the timeline presented by the IDF, then progressing on to note apparent discrepancies in the macabre media filed day Hezbollah provided as it paraded around the bodies of dead children for a scandal-hungry media's eager consumption.

    Blog EU Referendum cast heavy suspicion on Hezbollah's stage management of the event, astutely noting the presence of an individual tagged "Green Helmet" who's apparent role in Hezbollah in brandishing the corpses of dead children for the world media's cameras extends back a decade.

    Dan Riehl of Riehl World View notes with suspicion that refrigerated trucks from Tyre arrived before the media was allowed near the scene of the Qana strike, and suggests that bodies from the Tyre morgue may have been added to the Qana body count that the Lebanese Red Cross officially stated was roughly half that, of the widely reported 54-58, at 28.

    Predictably, Hezbollah's defenders labeled those questioning the version of events provided by Hezbollah to a carefully controlled media contingent as conspiracy theorists for noting the apparent discrepancies in the story Hezbollah provided the world.

    Air Force Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Amir Eshel officailly questioned why the building collapsed seven hours after the IDF air strike, and senior IDF officers explicitly noted the possibility of a "Hezbollah-planted explosive device."

    Why did the world media so readily accept Hezbollah's claim that it was Israel's air strike that brought the building down? Why have they investigated the officially noted discrepancies in the timing of the collapse?

    As asked here on Confederate Yankee, why were the bodies Hezbollah said were recovered from the scene seemingly inconsistent with the dead and injured of other collapsed buildings? The same forces of nature occur in every building collapse, regardless of whether the collapse is intentional (implosion or explosion) or unintentional (faulty construction, etc). Buildings of concrete such as the one in Qana generally produce a substantial amount of fine concrete dust that blankets nearby surfaces to such an extent that it almost appears to be volcanic ash, especially when explosives are involved in their demolition.

    We saw examples of such dust on survivors form the World Trade Center collapse.

    wtcsurvivors

    We see the same thick dust coming from small buildings that collapsed because of earthquakes 75 years ago.

    earthquakeNapier4

    And almost all of us have witnessed the massive clouds of dust released in the television broadcasts of the hundreds of controlled demolition of buildings around the world.

    Baptisthospitalimplosion

    Irrefutably, building collapses release a massive amount of dust into the air. This is even more apparent—or is at least is much more documented in the media—that buildings that are collapsed by explosives.

    And yet, when we look at the bodies of those reputedly recovered from the building in Qana, only a handful of those are covered in the heavy layer of concrete dust. If all of these bodies were recovered from the same basement or shelter as Hezbollah claims, then why are the bodies so unevenly coated? Why do some appear all but free of dust at all?

    I have little doubt in my mind that the baby brandished by Hezbollah's "Green Helmet" is indeed a building collapse victim because of the thick layer of dust on the body.

    pic5

    But what of so many of the other bodies that Hezbollah claims were pulled from the same basement bomb shelter?

    pic4

    pic2

    afp_01

    Note that these bodies—whose rigor mortis within two hours of the buildings collapse I've already questioned—are remarkably clean in comparison.

    I do not doubt that women and children died in Qana. The Lebanese Red Cross officially stated that 28 were recovered from the rubble. But do I question who died, and how many actually perished.

    "Pallywood" has a long and well-documented history of falsifying tragedies, from the questionable death of Muhammed al-Durrah to the Jenin Massacre, where many of the same sources that are unquestionably buying into Hezbolla's Qana story reported a masacre they were later forced to admit never occurred.

    Qana has every possibility of being another Jenin.

    Will the world listen this time?

    * * *

    Perhaps even more important than the possible (if not probable) Hezbollah exaggeration of the Qana dead is the story of why these women and children died in the first place.

    Hezbollah has made the decision to embed every aspect of it's military apparatus within the civilian population of southern Lebanon, placing ammunition stores, command and control facilities, rocket launching sites and Hezbollah barracks within residential neighborhoods, hiding under the skirts, as it were, of Lebanese housewives and their children.

    As Ed Morrissey notes today in the Washington Examiner:

    We want to see civilians spared the horrors of war, and we push combatants to take all possible steps to achieve that end. The Geneva Conventions have that explicit mandate, and the world should remain constantly — and consistently — vigilant.

    Unfortunately, the global community has failed miserably at this task, and this war not only highlights that failure, but springs from it. While the world holds Israel to this standard, things become curiously silent when it's time to hold Hezbollah responsible for its conduct of war. Hardly a word has escaped from the U.N. or Europe on the 2,500 missiles that have rained down upon Israeli civilians, deliberately targeted by Hezbollah. Those attacks have displaced more than 300,000 civilians, a fact the global community and the mainstream media ignore.

    Those who argue that Israel has occasionally violated the Geneva Conventions in its attacks casually ignore the blatant violations of Hezbollah, whose combatants wear no uniform, deliberately hide in civilian populations and fire weapons from residential areas. Hezbollah conducts none of its operations within the rules of war — and yet world leaders and the media never mention it.

    Why? Because no one expects terrorists to follow the rules. This is the soft nihilism of low expectations.

    The villagers in the areas surrounding Qana were warned by the IDF to leave five days earlier. More than 150 Katyusha had been fired out of Qana against Israeli civilians (which no one in the media seems to want to talk about) including missiles fired from outside that very building the night of the Israeli air strike.

    Israel has taken every reasonable precaution it can to prevent civilian deaths, but the battlefield Hezbollah has chosen makes civilians deaths all but impossible to avoid.

    Hezbollah has killed their own yet again, and it is to the world's shame that this continues almost without complaint.

    Low expectations, indeed.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:28 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

    Closure

    Former Hollywood agent and current documentary filmmaker Pat Dollard finds gives Iraq war widow Julie Shumney and her three children something no one else could.

    Closure.

    Just when Julie Shumney had accepted that advanced DNA testing couldn't provide answers to a mystery surrounding her husband's cremated remains, the Mesquite woman received hope for a different kind of closure.

    Documentary filmmaker Pat Dollard contacted her last week and told her that he has footage of the last two weeks of Marine 1st Lt. Dustin Shumney's life. The final glimpses of the Marine were caught not long before he boarded a helicopter that went down in Iraq in January 2005.

    "This is what I had been hoping for for the whole past year and a half, and the kids, too," Mrs. Shumney said in anticipation of watching the images with her children, Jordan, 13, Mallory, 10, and Conner, 5.

    Though it probably won't answer the questions Mrs. Shumney has about her husband's remains, the widow said the documentary, scheduled for release within three months, could help the family say goodbye.

    "It's really going to help a lot," she said.

    "Conner can watch this when he gets older, and I think it will trigger a lot of memories for him. The last time he saw his Daddy, he was 2."

    Pat Dollard is completing work on Young Americans, an Iraq War documentary filmed entirely by Dollard and the Marines he embedded himself with in Iraq.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:55 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    July 31, 2006

    Were the Qana Bodies Staged?

    These questions and others are beginning to mount as the discrepancies in Hezbollah's versions of events start to fall apart:

    On the morning of July 30, according to the IDF, the air force came in three waves. In the first, between midnight and one in the morning, there was a strike at or near the building that eventually collapsed. There was a second strike at other targets far from the collapse building several hours later, and a third strike at around 7:30 in the morning. There too the nearest hit was some 460 meters away, according to the IDF. But first reports of a building collapse came only around 8 am.

    Thus there was an unexplained 7 to 8 hour gap between the time of the helicopter strike and the building collapse. Brigadier General Amir Eshel, Head of the Air Force Headquarters, in a press briefing, told journalists that "the attack on the structure in the Qana village took place between midnight and one in the morning. The gap between the timing of the collapse of the building and the time of the strike on it is unclear."

    Gen. Eshel appeared genuinely mystified by the gap in time. He "I'm saying this very carefully, because at this time I don't have a clue as to what the explanation could be for this gap," he added.

    The army's only explanation was that somehow there was unexploded Hezbollah ordnance in the building that only detonated much later.
    "It could be that inside the building, things that could eventually cause an explosion were being housed, things that we could not blow up in the attack, and maybe remained there, Brigadier General Eshel said.

    Eshel reported that as recently as two days ago, military intelligence reported the building area had been used by the terrorists for storage or firing of weapons. It was a bad place to cram dozens of women and children.

    There are other mysteries. The roof of the building was intact. Journalist Ben Wedeman of CNN noted that there was a larger crater next to the building, but observed that the building appeared not to have collapsed as a result of the Israeli strike.

    Why would the civilians who had supposedly taken shelter in the basement of the building not leave after the post-midnight attack? They just went back to sleep and had the bad luck to wait for the building to collapse in the morning?

    What we do know is that sometime after dawn a call went hour to journalists and rescue workers to come to the scene. And come they did.

    While Hezbollah and its apologists have been claiming that civilians could not freely flee the scene due to Israeli destruction of bridges and roads, the journalists and rescue teams from nearby Tyre had no problem getting there.

    Lebanese rescue teams did not start evacuating the building until the morning and only after the camera crews came. The absence of a real rescue effort was explained by saying that equipment was lacking. There were no scenes of live or injured people being extracted.

    There was little blood, CNN's Wedeman noted: all the victims, he concluded, appeared to have died while as they were sleeping — sleeping, apparently, through thunderous Israeli air attacks. Rescue workers equipped with cameras were removing the bodies from the same opening in the collapsed structure. Journalists were not allowed near the collapsed building.

    Rescue workers filmed as they went carried the victims on the stretchers, occasionally flipping up the blankets so that cameras could show the faces and bodies of the dead.

    But Israelis steeled to scenes of carnage from Palestinian suicide bombings and Hezbollah rocket attack could not help but notice that these victims did not look like our victims. Their faces were ashen gray. Their limbs appeared to have stiffened, from rigor mortis. Neither were effects that would have resulted from an Israeli attack hours before. These were bodies that looked like they had been dead for days.

    Viewers can judge for themselves. But the accumulating evidence suggests another explanation for what happened at Kana. The scenario would be a setup in which the time between the initial Israeli bombing near the building and morning reports of its collapse would have been used to "plant" bodies killed in previous fighting — reports in previous days indicated that nearby Tyre was used as a temporary morgue — place them in the basement, and then engineer a "controlled demolition" to fake another Israeli attack.

    The well-documented use by Palestinians of this kind of faked footage — from the alleged shooting of Mohammed Dura in Gaza, scenes from Jenin of "dead" victims falling off gurneys and then climbing back on — have merited the creation of a new film genre called "Palliwood."

    Assuredly, Hezbollah's supporters will accuse those questioning the Qana attacks as conspiracy theorists, so I simply advise that viewers view the evidence with their own eyes, and draw their own conclusions from there.

    The photographic evidence below the fold includes images of the dead, and is not for the squeamish.

    afp_01

    The child in the photo reputedly died when a concrete building weighting thousands of pounds collapsed upon her. There no visible blood or abrasions consistent with a building collapse. Neither the child nor the man carrying her show any signs of dust or debris one would expect in a building collapse. As a nation that watched the World Trade Center towers fall, beleive me, we know something about concrete dust.

    pic2

    The child in this photo also shows no signs of injuries—no blood, no disfigurement or crushing wounds consistent with a building collapse. The two men, one of which has been thoroughly reported on—show no signs of having been digging in rubble. Their clothes are unbelievably clean, especially the black fatigues that would so easily shown concrete dust. The sole role of the second man, "The Baby Carrier" in other photos captured by the assembled media has been to hold up dead children for the television cameras over a multi-hour period.

    pic6

    In a picture that hits the wires just one hour (9:06 AM) after the building collapse, a Lebanese Red cross member sits with bodies already displaying significant rigor mortis. According to Wikipedia:

    Assuming mild temperatures, rigour usually sets in about 3-4 hours after clinical death, with full rigour being in effect at about 12 hours, and eventually subsiding to relaxation at about 36 hours.

    About.com puts the timing of maximum stiffness at about 12-24 hours after death. These people were supposed to have died with one hour of these photos being taken.

    pic3

    A later photo of the bodies above, now under sheets. Again, no blood seeps through the sheets as one might expect from the crushing wounds of a building collapse, and the exposed bodies show no signs of appreciable dust. Note in particular the body on the far left, which has its hands thrust in the air, presumably because of the severe rigor mortis mentioned above.

    pic4

    Perhaps the most damning evidence of Hezbollah staging this event with bodies from a morgue. This young victim is again relatively clean and displays no evidence of the expected crush injuries. In fact, he displays no injuries at all, and no blood. Note there is no sign of dust whatsoever in his hair. Note the discoloration of the lower face and arm. This would seem to be consistent with the natural affect of decomposition on a body several days after death. Once more, the rescuers are clean as a whistle, not even having dust on their gloves.

    pic5

    "The Baby Carrier" with the only victim that actually appears authentic. Not that the child is heavily coated in concrete dust, unlike all the other victims shown. He is also the only victim in any photo that has concrete dust in his hair.

    So, who do you trust? Do you trust the accounts of what happened as journalists parrot them from Hezbollah's statement of what happened, or do your eyes tell you something different.

    I, for one, see clear evidence of a most revolting Hezbollah fraud.

    Update: Followed up with Qana's Unanswered Questions.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:14 PM | Comments (320) | TrackBack

    July 29, 2006

    Another "Deranged" Muslim Attacks

    Another violent attack carried out because of religion, and once more, it isn't carried out by Methodists.

    Six women were shot - one fatally - this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man who told a witness he was upset about "what was going on in Israel."

    Police spokesman Rich Pruitt said there was one shooter, who was apprehended without incident outside the Jewish Federation building at the corner of Third Avenue and Virginia Street.

    "We believe it's a lone individual acting out his antagonism," said David Gomez, who heads the FBI's counterterrorism efforts in Seattle.

    Authorities did not release many details, but the FBI said the alleged shooter was between 30 and 40 and agents were investigating the incident as a hate crime. When asked at a news conference if that meant the alleged shooter was Muslim, Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said: "You could infer that."

    Steve at Hog on Ice captures my frustration with this and other attacks from Muslims on civilian targets nearly perfectly:

    Congratulations, Brave Muslim Warriors
    Seattle is Safe From Pregnant Jewish Women

    When will the political left figure out the difference between Israel and the Muslims? Notice I don't say "Muslim extremists." That's because the "extremists" have the moral and financial support of Muslims everywhere, and because the Islam we call "moderate" is more intolerant than the Klan.

    The left excoriates Israel constantly for its "brutality," complaining that Israel kills civilians. Yes, Israel kills civilians. So does every country that engages in military action. Like all civilized (i.e. "non-Muslim") nations, and to a greater degree than most, Israel strives to avoid civilian casualties, but they still happen. As a result of Muslim provocation, of course. No one bothers to point that out.

    Muslims, on the other hand, target civilians deliberately. The USUAL goal of armed Muslims is to kill civilians. Partly because they're barbarians, and partly because they generally lack the guts to take on soldiers.

    Israel attacks a missile battery. The Muslims shell a suburb. Israel destroys an ammunition dump. The Muslims shoot up a playground. This is the way it has always worked. Yet the poltical left squeals in outrage when a Muslim civilian dies, and they accept dead Jewish civilians as though being a Jew justifies murder.

    The left wets itself when anyone dares suggest that Muslim immigrants and resident aliens need special scrutiny, or that they might turn out to be disloyal. But the left isn't around to pick up the pieces when British Muslims or American Muslims who have never been oppressed in their lives blow up a subway train or kill random citizens with a sniper rifle. Actually, they ARE around. To tell us we brought it on ourselves.

    Steve (read the whole thing, it's an impressive rant) goes on to advocate the conquering of Muslim countries and forcing them into submission, which I do not advocate.

    Yet.

    Ask me again after the next 9/11-scale terrorist attack on this nation.

    Until then, these pinprick attacks by "unstable" Muslims make me view the rest of their co-religionists with deep suspicion and mistrust

    They've earned every bit of it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:43 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

    July 28, 2006

    Inside the Sandbox

    A soldier/son's wise perspective on Iraq at Blue Crab Boulevard.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:22 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    "Thank you from the bottom of my heart"

    Listen to a gripping call to Pat Dollard from Susan, and Army wife and mother, on Pundit Review.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    July 27, 2006

    Hezbollah's White Phosphorus Lies

    It was only a matter of time before Hezbollah and their gullible dupes in the media began applying the Terrorist Propaganda Cook Book to the present war in Lebanon, accusing Israel forces of using chemical and other "illegal weapons" against civilians.

    The Sydney Morning Herald was all too willing to print these suspiciously vague allegations:

    Killed by Israeli air raids, the Lebanese dead are charred in a way local doctors, who have lived through years of civil war and Israeli occupation, say they have not seen before.

    Bachir Cham, a Belgian-Lebanese doctor at the Southern Medical Centre in Sidon, received eight bodies after an Israeli air raid on nearby Rmeili which he said exhibited such wounds.

    He has taken 24 samples from the bodies to test what killed them. He believes it is a chemical.
    Cham said the bodies of some victims were "black as shoes, so they are definitely using chemical weapons. They are all black but their hair and skin is intact so they are not really burnt. It is something else."
    "If you burnt someone with petrol their hair would burn and their skin would burn down to the bone. The Israelis are 100 per cent using chemical weapons."

    Lebanese President Emile Lahoud has repeatedly accused Israel of using phosphorus bombs in its offensive.

    Human Rights Watch, which has accused the Israeli army of using cluster bombs in populated areas of southern Lebanon, said it had not verified claims that Israel had used phosphorus.

    "We are investigating but we haven't confirmed anything yet. We have seen phosphorus used before and we have seen it in the artillery stocks of the Israeli army in the north," said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch.

    "Phosphorus shells do have a legitimate use in illuminating the battlefield at night. The offensive use of phosphorus would be a violation of international conventions."

    If these charges seem to be familiar, it is because they are an echo of the exact same kind of charges popularized in a fraudulent documentary called Fallujah, the Hidden Massacre, from Italian Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, directed by Sigfrido Ranucci.

    I thoroughly debunked the half-truths and lies of this film back in November in a series of posts:

    Rai's White Phosphorus Fraud

    The Lies of Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

    The Lies of Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

    The Lies of Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, Part 3

    The well-documented and irrefutable lies in Ranucci's film begin in the opening credits and do not stop until the final credits are over.

    Hezbollah seeks to use these same dark libels without a shred of any evidence supporting their allegations, other than claims made by Lebanese doctors and government officials. Let's look at the claims made by the Lebanese doctor in the Sydney Morning Herald article again:

    Bachir Cham, a Belgian-Lebanese doctor at the Southern Medical Centre in Sidon, received eight bodies after an Israeli air raid on nearby Rmeili which he said exhibited such wounds.

    He has taken 24 samples from the bodies to test what killed them. He believes it is a chemical.

    Cham said the bodies of some victims were "black as shoes, so they are definitely using chemical weapons. They are all black but their hair and skin is intact so they are not really burnt. It is something else."

    Almost these exact same descriptions are used to describe many of the bodies shown in Fallujah, the Hidden Massacre. Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield (England), had this to say about those bodies:

    He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition. "

    The simple fact of the matter is that the war in Lebanon has been going on for 16 days, and those people killed more than a few days ago would quickly begin to decompose in the summer heat. Conditions vary from place to place, but it is quite possible and perhaps even probably that those killed by primary blast efects from bombs or artillery fire and left in the streets would be black through decomposition, not the affects of some sort of "mystery weapon."

    The classification of injuries caused by an explosive blast fall into four classifications:

    • primary
    • secondary
    • tertiary
    • quaternary

    A thorough description of these kinds of injuries is available here.

    Primary blast injuries—those caused by the pressure wave of a conventional military explosives, typically affecting soft tissues within the body but leaving little or no visible wound on the body—are highly consistent with the bodies described by the Lebanese doctor, providing that as ABC alluded to, bodies are often unrecovered for days.

    This is the exact same kind of injury that killed Jordanian terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Had he not been recovered immediately—say, a major conflict was erupting around his body and it could not easily be recovered for days or even weeks—there is a quite distinct chance that if the environmental condition in his area were favorable, then his body would have been recovered, "all black but... hair and skin... intact," precisely as Dr Cham saw in Lebanon.

    Now, let us look again at the specific white phosphorus comments made in this SMH article:

    Lebanese President Emile Lahoud has repeatedly accused Israel of using phosphorus bombs in its offensive.

    Human Rights Watch, which has accused the Israeli army of using cluster bombs in populated areas of southern Lebanon, said it had not verified claims that Israel had used phosphorus.

    "We are investigating but we haven't confirmed anything yet. We have seen phosphorus used before and we have seen it in the artillery stocks of the Israeli army in the north," said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch.

    "Phosphorus shells do have a legitimate use in illuminating the battlefield at night. The offensive use of phosphorus would be a violation of international conventions."

    White phosphorus munitions, despite the way they are described in this article, are not illegal, are not banned by any international treaty, and have perfectly legitimate military uses.

    They are primarily used for smoke screens, but because of their incendiary nature, they are also useful against flammable targets. Hezbollah's rockets—more than 2,000 of which have been fired into Israel with up to an estimated 8,000 more remaining in Lebanon—are highly flammable, and a viable target for WP munitions.

    White phosphorus shells are also useful as a psychological weapon against entrenched position. The U.S. forces in Fallujah used a combination of white phosphorus and proximity-fused high explosive shells to clear terrorist positions, as described here:

    In a tactical trick called a "shake 'n bake," American mortars or howitzers would drop several white phosphorus shells as close as possible to an entrenched enemy position. The white phosphorus-saturated felt wedges would then deploy and fall to the ground, where some could potentially burn terrorists hiding in trenches and spider holes, but it would almost certainly obscure their vision, no matter what kind of cover they were under.

    The terrorists, knowing that American forces preferred to use the dense smoke of white phosphorus to screen attacks, would panic, fearing they were about to be overrun. As the evacuated their entrenched ambush positions, high explosive shells were the fired to kill the insurgents flushed out in the open.

    White phosphorus munitions are a normal part of the inventory for NATO forces, among others, and there is nothing illegal in their use. Some have complained that white phosphorus weapons are illegally being used against civilians. Would it be more palatable of these civilians were killed with other munitions?

    The simple fact of the matter is that Hezbollah, by purposefully integrating their positions into civilian neighborhoods, place the lives of Lebanon's civilians in danger. Lebanese Shiites that support Hezbollah and allow Hezbollah to build bunkers, storehouses, and sniper nests in their homes should not be surprised or appalled when the Israeli military targets that position.

    The arguments are recycled, the evidence contrived; there is no credible evidence that chemical or white phosphorus weapons are being used to target Lebanese civilians, and it is telling that the media are all too willing to be led down this same path of lies again.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:20 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

    July 25, 2006

    Prepare the Virgins


    The U.S. military has churned through the Taliban over the past month, killing more than 600 terrorists during Operation Mountain Thrust.

    Why isn't this on the front page at CNN.com?

    Don't be silly. That "800-lb marlin spears fisherman" story is so much more a pressing world event...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    July 24, 2006

    The Silence of the Informed

    Arlen Specter has written an Op-Ed in the Washington Post that is apparently giving the left side of the blogosphere convulsions this morning, entitled, Surveillance We Can Live With.

    The section of Specter's editorial that seems to be giving most liberals fits is where Specter (according to them) misunderstands the Youngstown decision:

    Critics complain that the bill acknowledges the president's inherent Article II power and does not insist on FISA's being the exclusive procedure for the authorization of wiretapping. They are wrong. The president's constitutional power either exists or does not exist, no matter what any statute may say. If the appellate court precedents cited above are correct, FISA is not the exclusive procedure. If the president's assertion of inherent executive authority meets the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" test, it provides an alternative legal basis for surveillance, however FISA may purport to limit presidential power. The bill does not accede to the president's claims of inherent presidential power; that is for the courts either to affirm or reject. It merely acknowledges them, to whatever extent they may exist.

    Anonymous Liberal writes:

    Good lord. Can someone please get Senator Specter a copy of Youngstown?

    [snip]

    Seriously, if Specter had written the above-quoted paragraph on a constitutional law exam, his professor would have flunked him. His description of the interplay between statutes and the president's article II authority runs contrary to the long-established Youngstown framework, which--as the Court's various opinions in Hamdan demonstrate--all nine of the current Supreme Court justices accept as controlling.

    As Specter should know, there is a world of difference between what a president has the power to do in the absence of a statute and what he has the power to do in the face of a statutory prohibition. That's constitutional law 101.

    Much has been made of Specter's willingness to legislate in the dark. He has, after all, agreed to sponsor legislation legalizing a program about which he has not even been briefed. But far more disturbing to me is his apparent inability to get his head around a basic principle of constitutional law. As I noted last week, the very wording and structure of his bill--like his op-ed--reflects a fundamental misconception of presidential authority. And there's really no excuse for that. Someone on Specter's staff really does need to sit him down and force him to read Youngstown. Or if he doesn't have time, footnote 23 of the Hamdan decision will suffice:

    Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers.
    Senator Specter, please pay special attention to the phrase "whether or not." That's the key. It doesn't matter whether the pre-FISA cases you cite in your op-ed held that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. A duly enacted statute, like FISA, may nevertheless place enforceable limits on the president's authority. This is not controversial.

    If this as not controversial as Mr. Liberal and Marty Lederman state, then why is this issue still being debated at all?

    Surely, if the issue is as cut-and-dried as these folks seem to suggest, then the army of NSA staff lawyers that specialize is this area of law and have reviewed the details and legality of the program would have condemned the program before it was implemented.

    And yet, in the years before the program was exposed by the New York Times, not one patriotic NSA lawyer has "leaked" the damning details of the story to defend the nation.

    Nor has the program been a concern for the man in charge of implementing it, General Michael Hayden, who knew its details. Nor has it apparently been a concern for the NSA team in charge of the program's implementation and monitoring. If the program was so clearly out of bounds as all of these expert pontificators suggest with their thorough lack of knowledge of the program, certainly some of the incriminating details of the program would have found their way to the Times. And yet, the literally dozens of people who know the program best, including the NSA lawyers that specialize in this are of law and the professionals that implemented it, a bevy of White House Counsel, and career Justice Department lawyers, have kept mum.

    For that matter, the ten FISA Court judges that were briefed on the program have also kept quiet; surely if they had objections, they could have resigned from the court with no penalty, sending a very loud message. And yet, they have refused to do so.

    Are we to assume, then, that all of these federal employees, many of which have public service dating back to prior Administrations, are so willing to give up essential liberties and are such Bush sycophants that they would willing engage in the undercutting of the U.S. Constitution?

    This seems to be at the root of the libertarian and liberal allegation, in my non-legally-educated mind. In their ever-present desire to condemn the Administration, they presume that those who do know the program best are willing accomplices to the undermining of the nation. I could perhaps accept this explanation if so many people were not involved, but that is not the reality of the situation.

    Uninformed doubters are of course free to object to the program quite strenuously as they have and certainly will continue to do, but from where I sit, the silence of the informed speaks volumes.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:36 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBack

    "We are all Hezbollah now"

    No, not this demonstration in London, but this equally shameless CNN reporting in Lebanon:

    Politics creeps into the ward like the blood that runs on the floors. "Clearly he is Hezbollah," says one of the doctors outside the room -- sarcastically referring to 8-year-old Mahmood, whose screams can be heard from the hallway. His screams now blend with the wails of his mother, matching the baby's cries.

    The hospital ward begins to teem with members of the international press. They all have blue flak jackets that say "press" on the front. They carry microphones, cameras, radios and satellite phones, and have local guides to translate.

    Today, as I finish I am sitting in the same spot and the shells are still falling. Hezbollah rockets are firing toward northern Israel. I can imagine another reporter, in another flak jacket, standing over an 8-year old Israeli boy.

    I'll finish by asking another question: Are any of us making a difference?

    Certainly these "journalists" are trying to make a difference. CNN reports on this conflict have been reliably biased, and this is no exception, which becomes apparent if you read the rest of this article.

    Focussing on the always sympathic victims, the women and young children killed and injured by Israeli bombs, the CNN reporter studiously avoids questioning the Lebanese Shia culture that supports and lionizes Hezbollah even now.

    That would be too much like real, unbiased reporting, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:11 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    Why Liberals Can't Win Wars

    Ive seen some stupid posts reading liberal blogs, but with the exception of anything from Oliver Willis, this faux "we care about the troops" post from Billmon piggy-backing on Christian Science Monitor excretion (currently now offline—were they embarrassed of it?) might be the new gold standard:

    Earlier this week I linked to a commentary from William S. Lind in which he warned that war with Iran could result in the loss of the 140,000 man army America currently has bogged down in Iraq. This may have seemed far-fetched, given the enormous military disparity between the two sides. But Col. Pat Lang, a former intelligence officer, explains how and why it could happen:
    American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq . . . Southern Iraq is thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian special operations forces working with Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of the Baghdad government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long. (Christian Science Monitor, via No Quarter)

    There's a saying: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. And in the case of the U.S. Army, they talk it about a lot. This has been true almost as long as there's been a U.S. Army. During the 1944-45 campaign in Europe, for example, each U.S. division consumed 650 tons of food, gas, ammo and other supplies per day -- roughly three times what the German Army managed to get by on. Logistical requirements have only exploded since then. Those lobster tails they're eating at Camp Victory don't grow on the trees.

    If the supply lines back to Kuwait were to be cut -- or even seriously interdicted -- the U.S. military presence in Iraq would quickly become untenable. I'm not even sure the Army could scrounge enough gas to keep the tanks and Humvees moving, given that Iraq already suffers from a severe refining capacity shortage and must import most of its gasoline from Kuwait.

    He then breathlessly (and no doubt hopefully) adds:

    In other words, in the event of a real world war -- as opposed to the kind that pundits pontificate about on Fox News -- Centcom would either have to "pacify" the transportation routes through southern Iraq quickly and ruthlessly (which might not be possible, given the troops available and the possibility some Iraqi units might turn on their putative allies) or try to evacuate some or most U.S. forces from Iraq, either by air or ground.

    We're talking, on other words, about a potential debacle -- the worst U.S. military defeat since Pearl Harbor.

    Pearl Harbor? Err, no. Laughably, no.

    Billmon, thank you for once again proving why when it comes to discussing military matters, liberals aren't ready to move up from the kid's table.

    Here is the reality of the situation.

    According to credible sources Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army may number as many as 10,000 Iraqi Shia militiamen possessing mainly small arms (AK-47, light machine guns, RPGs). Only perhaps a tenth of that force has even minimal military training. Even with Iranian Revolutionary Guards providing some more modern weaponry and training, the Madhi Army has decisively lost every conflict it has engaged in against coalition forces in the past two years, including recent raids carried out by Iraqi government forces. A Madhi Army of lightly armed, poorly trained, and poorly led militiamen cannot hope to perform the feats required to fulfill the sick fantasy shared by Billmon and the CSM. Presently, it is a bit more occupied with not getting erradicated like crabgrass.

    But what if they had help?

    The quote Billmon pulls from the CSM article speaks of the "Badr Brigades."

    I see that the crack staff of the CSM and Billmon are really up with current events, as the Badr Brigades haven't been called that for three years now, restyling themselves the Badr Organization and joining in the political process as part of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition.

    They've played a lead role in fighting the insurgency around Karbala, and while occasionally at odds with the British forces in southern Iraq and seen as a sectarian militia by most, it has neither the manpower nor the weaponry (even with covert Iranian Revolutionary Guards support) to pose a military threat should it suddenly decide to forego the gains it has made as part of the political process. The several thousand man organization is even more lightly armed than the Madhi Army.

    So who, praytell, will supply the OPFOR in "a 'shooting gallery' 400 to 800 miles long" that Billmon so fears?

    The only discernible force left is Iran proper, and indeed, Pentagon planners have envisioned and planned for a multiple responses to the scenario of Iranian forces made a stab across the southern tip of Iraq in an attempt to cut off U.S. forces.

    Sadly, the loss of life would be tremendous in such a campaign, but the victor of such a struggle has never been in doubt.

    The Iranian Army numbers 350,000 with 200,000 being poorly trained and equipped (by U.S. standards) conscripts. It has only one true armored division and two mechanized infantry divisions, with no real air force or Navy to speak of, and air defenses severely outmoded even with the recent addition of Soviet TOR-1 batteries.

    Iranian tanks—mostly T-72 variants that originated in the 1970s and T-54/55s that were originally designed at the end of WWII—would be the tip of the Iranian spear. Along with the hundreds of mostly-outdated infantry fighting vehicles they can bring to bear, these would all be inviting targets for allied air forces that unquestioningly own the airspace in the region.

    Any southern invasion by Iran would be a replay of the Highway of Death on a massive, tragic scale.

    This wuld be nothing like another Pearl Harbor as Billmon so hysterically intones, and would far more likely be another highway 80 in the first Gulf War, or the closing of the Falaise pocket Todesgang, or "death road" of World War II that sealed the German defeat in Normandy.

    Start to finish, such an invasion would last less than a week, causing a discernable wrinkle to the supply lines (which would simply reroute westward for a short time) but fail miserably in its primary aim, while losing the bulk of the military force projected into Iraq in the process.

    Of course were the Iranian invasion and massacre to come to pass, rest assured Billmon to be among the first to call for war crimes trials against the United States for crushing the Iranian invasion.

    Of course, he'd probably screw that up as well.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:10 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    July 21, 2006

    Enough

    Pajamas Media blogger Eugene writes amid the air raid sirens in Haifa:

    A few minutes ago the sirens started again in the distance; they were so faint that we were only made aware of them by watching Haifa on TV. Like Pavlov's dogs we react to the stimuli dutifully, almost mindlessly. It's a second nature now. But this time it was different.

    On the way down we heard a large boom, my neighbor phoned his daughter across town as soon as the radio announced that Haifa was hit. Up until now he seemed to me the calmest person down there, but his expression changed. "It hit near you? The windows exploded?" His arm unknowingly touches the wall to support himself, "don't cry, don't cry.. Are you ok?". He hangs up and with resolve says that he's going down there, no tears but he's already changed. With shaking fingers he calls somebody else about the car...

    There is something in the American psyche that resulted from never having been on the receiving end of enemy fire. Our veterans of course knew that feeling. It haunts some, and filled others with a resolve to live each day to the fullest, as they knew how fleeting and precious each and every individual minute on this earth is. On September 11, 2001, we were jolted out of the false calm we had created for ourselves in this world.

    For many, if not most, that feeling of immediacy slipped away when more attacks ceased to occur, and we mentally retreated to that safe place, that false illusion, that we held before.

    "It" is something that happens "over there."

    A 17-year-old Israeli listening to air raid sirens and not-so-distant explosions, the war is immediate for Eugene. "Over there" is across town, as people try to kill him for simply being born who and where he is.

    We have no concept of that here, not really. Try as I might, I can't relate to rockets raining in from above, death hanging in the air on a contrail, wondering if those I care about—laugh with, love—are dead or dying.

    And so we expect that despite all the signs of escalation—the reservists being called up, the troops massing at the border, the intensifying bombardment—that somehow, there will be someone who finds a reason to stop, to halt the madness, to call it all off before it is Too Late.

    But it is too late. It has been for quite a while.

    Hezbollah, backed by Iran and their puppet Syria, have passed some sort of a breaking point not easily defined where Israelis seem to have said enough.

    As so the bombardment of Lebanon continues, and the troops mass, waiting for that moment when they surge over the border. They go rifle in hand, knowing that any moment could be their last, hoping their sacrifice will buy lives back home from an enemy that wishes to drive them into the sea.

    They should show no quarter, take no prisoners, but be filled with a terrible resolve that there will be no "next time."

    As Onkar Gate stated Wednesday from the Ayn Rand Institute (h/t Cox & Forkum):

    To achieve peace in the Middle East, as in any region, there is a necessary principle that every party must learn: the initiation of force is evil. And the indispensable means of teaching it is to ensure that the initiating side is defeated and punished. Decisive retaliatory force must be wielded against the aggressor.

    [snip]

    If we truly seek peace, we must reverse this perverse lesson. We must proclaim the objective conditions of peace. This means declaring to Arab nations that Israel, as a free country, has a moral right to exist, that the Arabs and Palestinians are the initiators of the conflict and that aggression on their part is evil and will not be tolerated. And it means encouraging Israel not to negotiate and compromise with its current assailants, but to destroy them.
    Only when the initiators of force learn that their actions lead not to world sympathy and political power, but to their own deaths, will peace be possible in the Middle East.

    Eugene will never know peace a long as Hezbollah remains. Israel must crush Hezbollah, and Lebanon too, if it refuses to evict these terrorists in their midst. Many Lebanese will die in coming days, and many of them will be civilians, but only through that terrible lesson will they learn that allowing terrorism is supporting terrorism.

    I simply hope that the survivors on both sides learn, so that this lesson does not have to be taught again soon.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

    July 20, 2006

    Deadly Harvest

    As you sow, so shall you reap:

    Israeli troops met fierce resistance from Hezbollah guerrillas Thursday as they crossed into Lebanon to seek tunnels and weapons for a second straight day, and Israel hinted at a full-scale invasion. Israeli warplanes also launched new airstrikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, shortly after daybreak, followed by strikes in the guerrillas' heartland in the south and eastern Bekaa Valley. The strikes followed bombings Wednesday that killed as many as 70 people, according to Lebanese television, making it the deadliest day since the fighting began July 12.

    Russia sharply criticized Israel over its onslaught against Lebanon, now in its ninth day, sparked when Hezbollah militants captured two Israeli soldiers. The Russian Foreign Ministry said Israel's actions have gone "far beyond the boundaries of an anti-terrorist operation" and repeating calls for an immediate cease-fire.

    Russia is somewhat correct; this is "far beyond the boundaries of an anti-terrorist operation" as they claim. This is not an anti-terrorist operation, but a quite conventional war.

    Would the Russian Foreign Ministry be so kind as to answer what their response would be Hezbollah launched over 1,600 rocket and mortar attacks deliberately targeting Russian civilians? What if Hezbollah had fired these same 1,600 missiles and mortar shells into France?

    We know their answer in advance. Beirut would already resemble another Dresden or Hiroshima, and the few hundredShia dead now would number in the thousands.

    I can find very little sympathy for the Lebanese Shia who have so closely embraced Hezbollah and their tactics over the past decades. Every suffering Shia child you see in a Lebanese hospital is there because Israel was forced to respond against Hezbollah's incessant attacks.

    I have very little sympathy for so-called "civilian" populations that willingly support terrorist groups, whether that population are Lebanese Shias south of Beirut, Palestinians in Gaza, or Pashtun villages in the tribal areas of Pakistan. They accept and often celebrate the terrorists in their midst, accept their philosophies, share their goals, and their successes. The flip side of this is that they must embrace the repercussions against terrorism as well.

    Terrorism cannot be eradicated as a tactic if the populations that support it do not pay the price for that support. Terrorism will die when the civilian breeding grounds of terrorist support shares in the pain that terrorism causes.

    Lebanon's Hezbollah-supporting Shia are now feeling some of that pain both physically and politically. Whether or not it is enough for them to change their ways remains to be seen.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:42 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 19, 2006

    The Toddler-Threatening, Sniper-Watching Community

    And the spiral downwards towards terminal madness continues among the liberal elite:

    I am still beyond anger at a recently published photo from New York Times Photographer Joao Silva of a Mahdi Militia sniper about to fire on American Soldiers. Only by coincidence searching Memeorandum for other topics of the day did I come across this post by Glenn Greenwald. I felt compelled to ask him a question. Again I am stunned. Here is my question:
    Would you stand there and watch a terrorist shoot at Americans and take a picture?

    Here was his answer:

    Personally, I would not, because I'm not a jouranlist. But if I were a photographer assigned to that region and to cover the insurgency, of course I would. I'd want Americans to see the reality of the forces we are fighting, rather than suppressing their images...

    Glenn Greenwald, ladies and gentlemen, stating in his own words that he would sit there and take pictures as a sniper tries to kill fellow Americans because it's just part of his job.

    But don't question his...

    Yeah. Whatever.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:23 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    Hearts and Minds

    Hezbollah might be trying to claim the title of "The World's Dumbest Terrorist Group."

    Already decimated and mocked in continuous air and artillery strikes from the Israeli Defense Forces, roundly condemned by the international community and abandoned by prominent Arab nations in the region, Hezbollah seems intent on inflaming sentiment among the world's Christians and Israeli Arabs, killing several in rocket attacks on Nazareth.

    Via Fox News:

    A Hezbollah rocket slammed into a building Wednesday in the mainly Arab town of Nazareth, the hometown of Jesus, killing three people, including two children, Israeli authorities said.

    Smoke billowed from the damaged a building and its roof appeared mostly destroyed, television footage showed. Local residents ran to the building and helped fire fighters unwind their water houses.
    It was not immediately clear if any of the holy sites in the town were damaged.
    Mohammed Assawi, who saw the attack, told Israel's Channel 10 that the rocket that killed the two children struck in the middle of a downtown street.

    "It's a vacation and it's afternoon so where will they go if not to play in the streets?" he said. "It is unpleasant to say what we saw."

    Police later said that a third person was killed and two other people were wounded.

    Hezbollah has only two true friends remaining in Syria and Iran, and quite frankly, Syria's support could be made to waiver rather easily with targeted air strikes, destabilizing Assad's precarious regime.

    I think Krauthammer is correct: the only correct exit strategy in Lebanon is over the grave of Hezbollah, and there are those that see this as a distinct possibility.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    July 18, 2006

    Even Better the Second Time

    I like this Rowan Scarborough article, though I liked it better when I wrote it almost seven months ago.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Will Misfires

    Over at The Corner this morning, John Podhoretz announced:

    George Will Goes Nuclear

    This may prove to be the most discussed op-ed of the year.

    Actually, it isn't even the most discussed post of the day from Washington Post columnists, with Richard Cohen's "curl up and die" op-ed targeting Israel taking that dishonor.

    Still, I read Will's column in the New York Post as J-Pod urged, and even after a re-reading, I wasn't duly impressed with any of this:

    Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Rice called it "short-sighted" to judge the success of the administration's transformational ambitions by a "snapshot" of progress "some couple of years" into the transformation. She seems to consider today's turmoil preferable to the Middle East's "false stability" of the last 60 years, during which U.S. policy "turned a blind eye to the absence of democratic forces."

    There is, however, a sense in which that argument creates a blind eye: It makes instability, no matter how pandemic or lethal, necessarily a sign of progress. Violence is vindication: Hamas and Hezbollah have, Rice says, "determined that it is time now to try and arrest the move toward moderate democratic forces in the Middle East."

    But there also is democratic movement toward extremism. America's intervention was supposed to democratize Iraq which, by benign infection, would transform the region. Early on in the Iraq occupation, Rice argued that democratic institutions do not just spring from a hospitable political culture, they also can help create such a culture. Perhaps.

    But elections have transformed Hamas into the government of the Palestinian territories, and elections have turned Hezbollah into a significant faction in Lebanon's parliament, from which it operates as a state within the state. And as a possible harbinger of future horrors, last year's elections gave the Muslim Brotherhood 19 percent of the seats in Egypt's parliament.

    For a region cycling through periods of high intensity, short-duration wars, and low intensity, long duration slugfests, is the "false stability" Will speaks of worth maintaining? I suggest not, and I think that the turmoil would exist, triggered by Hamas and Hezbollah and the regimes in Syria and Iran that back them, whether or not we ever invaded Iraq at all in 2003.

    Certainly, America wasn't invading any Arab or Persian nations in the 1948 War for Israeli Independence, The Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, or any of the other conflicts Israel has been engaged in during it's nearly 60 year modern history, and so Will's argument seems to fall short of the facts.

    Will makes the false argument that instability is not required for progress in the region, an absurd position in science and politics. Whether we are discussing physical materials or a region in political stasis, a catalyst is needed to create change, and as that change occurred instability is a certainly. There is only stability in the inert and the dead, and quite frankly, I don't see Israel as willing to be either.

    Yes, democracy can have bad results. People can elect bad leaders as easily as bad leaders can seize power on their own, but that does not invalidate the concept democracy, and in fact reinforced the importance of the vote. People can choose to make bad decisions and they must learn to live with the consequences of that decision. Hopefully, the Palestinians will learn that lesson over time, as will the Lebanese that helped Hezbollah into power, only to undo the progress of the past 15 years in less than a week.

    Wil'ls column brings us nothing new, nothing astute, and rehashes arguments I've seen better written elsewhere by writers with far less renown.

    Perhaps Will has attempted to go nuclear, but like a North Korean missile, he has fallen apart shortly after launch.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Cohen Blames Israel

    You are an abomination. You are a mistake. You should have been aborted before birth, and now that you have been born, you deserve every beating you've gotten since, merely for daring to exist.

    Or at least that seems to summarize Richard Cohen's feelings toward the Jews of Israel, while he can scarcely find a word to condemn Hezbollah, Hamas, or the other Islamists intent on Israeli genocide. Of course, don't take my word for it, when his will do:

    The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.

    This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It is why the conflict mutates and festers. It is why Israel is now fighting an organization, Hezbollah, that did not exist 30 years ago and why Hezbollah is being supported by a nation, Iran, that was once a tacit ally of Israel's. The underlying, subterranean hatred of the Jewish state in the Islamic world just keeps bubbling to the surface. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some other Arab countries may condemn Hezbollah, but I doubt the proverbial man in their street shares that view.

    There is no point in condemning Hezbollah. Zealots are not amenable to reason. And there's not much point, either, in condemning Hamas. It is a fetid, anti-Semitic outfit whose organizing principle is hatred of Israel. There is, though, a point in cautioning Israel to exercise restraint -- not for the sake of its enemies but for itself. Whatever happens, Israel must not use its military might to win back what it has already chosen to lose...

    That is as much of Cohen's "curl up and die" message to Israel as I felt like holding forth, though you are certainly well within your rights to read the whole thing if you must.

    Sadly, Cohen's grasp of history is shown to be almost as weak as that of Iran's Holocaust-denying President Ahmadinejad.

    Cohen rails against "the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims," in a land where Jews predated the very existence of Islam by more than two millennia. It was only during the first two centuries AD that the Jews were forced from their ancestral homes in Israel and into slavery around the world, and it wasn't until after then that Muslims usurped Israeli lands.

    Cohen makes another asinine statement unsupported by the history he claims to be on the side of, when he states, "Whatever happens, Israel must not use its military might to win back what it has already chosen to lose..."

    Poppycock.

    If history has taught us anything about Islam, it is that Islam—a religion that dutifully separates the world into Dar al Islam (the House of Submission [to Allah]) and Dar al Harb (the House of War)—the only thing Muslim culture understands or respects is brute force. From Vienna to Tours to modern day wars along Islam's current borders, this lesson is repeated down through history to the present day.

    Only overwhelming force and the crushing defeats it has visited upon its enemies have kept Israel alive thus far. Every retreat, every pullback, has led to more aggression from its neighbors.

    Displaying a most selective grasp of history, he excretes a post almost Greenwaldian in its dishonesty.

    "It is best," Cohen concludes, "for Israel to hunker down."

    Forces that hunker down can never win wars, and at best they may merely survive. Israel deserves something far more than the mere survival Cohen is willing to grant them.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:02 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

    July 17, 2006

    Israel Must Escalate

    Writing in Haaretz, Ze'ev Schiff makes what I think is a pretty good analysis when he says the Israel-Hezbollah War has not reached its peak:

    The fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, has still not reached its zenith. The Israel Defense Forces' operational plans against the Shi'ite organizations have not yet been carried out. The next two days are the most critical and a lot depends on whether Tehran decides to take a chance and authorize Hezbollah to launch long-range missiles with more powerful warheads. This is a capability Hezbollah still retains, despite the heavy blows it has suffered in the IDF air strikes.

    On Sunday, Israel bore witness to the use of more powerful rockets against Haifa, which killed eight people and injured dozens more. The Syrian-made 220 mm rocket has a warhead weighing more than 50 kilograms. Hezbollah was supplied with these rockets as the Syrian armed forces were receiving them off the production lines. The decision to give Hezbollah the rockets was made when it was concluded that the group would be considered part of the Syrian army's overall emergency preparedness.

    The risk to Iran is not military, but rather that Hezbollah would suffer such damage that it would no longer be counted as the sole external element of Iran's Islamic Revolution. It is difficult to assess what the Iranian leadership will decide. If it does opt for aggravating the situation, it will certainly encourage the Syrians to become involved in the confrontation, but all indications suggest that Damascus is not eager to get dragged into war.

    Israel is also not interested in a third front, so long as Syria does not intervene in the fighting on the side of Hezbollah.

    As the Counterterrorism Blog also noted, Hezbollah also has used the Iranian made and supplied 333 mm Raad missile. A Chinese-designed weapon the Raad is based upon the Silkworm, and can carry a 1100 lb warhead of conventional, chemical or nuclear design. It is not to be confused with the Iranian ATGM (antitank guided missile) of the same name that the Hezbollah may also try to use against Israeli Merkava tanks.

    Israel is fighting Iran and Syria in the most thinly veiled proxy war of this young century, and Israel must decimate Hezbollah's rocket program if it is to survive.

    More than six months ago analysts were predicting that apocalyptic sect running Iran may be trying to create an End Times conflagration to mesh with their 12th Imam eschatology. Much of the analysis and -speculation I've read since then has focused on the threat of long-range nuclear missiles fired from Iran, but it becomes increasingly more clear on a daily basis that Iranian forces and the most advanced Iranian weaponry are being deployed with Hezbollah on Israel's doorstep.

    The nuclear deterrence theory of MAD (mutual assured destruction) was predicated upon the thought that bot sides would be able to get nuclear weapons airborne in the event of an attack, assuring both sides would suffer catastrophic losses. This theory was already turned on its head by those who theorize that the Iranian leadership is hoping precisely for that sort of exchange to bring about their hoped for End of Days.

    But an Iran that has nuclear-capable missiles in southern Lebanon is another matter entirely, as it is an entirely more practical and worldly extension of Iran's hatred for Israel.

    A well-timed and executed Iranian nuclear weapon first strike could easily be disguised as just another conventional Raad rocket attack like the ones that have already been fired on Israeli cities. Iran could conceivably and rather easily hide a crippling nuclear first strike in a barrage of Hezbollah missiles, incinerating the majority of the country before Israel even suspected it was under a nuclear attack.

    For these reasons, Israel must not only beat Hezbollah back and rearrange another stalemate, it must continue on until Hezbollah in Lebanon is destroyed. To not follow through is to endanger the very existence of the nation, and to potentially invite an Iranian nuclear attack.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:45 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 15, 2006

    "All the Troops That Are Fit To Kill"

    madhi_sniper


    A terrorist sniper is trying to kill U.S. soldiers, and the New York Times is literally right their with them.

    Taking pictures.

    Probably spotting.

    But don't question their patriotism.

    (h/t Protein Wisdom)

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:37 PM | Comments (27) | TrackBack

    July 14, 2006

    Have a Nice Day

    At least one strategic operations think tank that reports to the Pentagon thinks that our near-term future may be found in the Bible:

    For in my jealousy [and] in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel;

    So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that [are] upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.

    And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man's sword shall be against his brother.

    And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that [are] with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.

    Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I [am] the LORD.

    Ezekiel 38:19-23

    From Israel to India, nations with the power of the sun teeter on the brink of full engagement in the Fourth World War.

    VII Inc. is a strategic planning company that in a January report, "Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Islamic Eschatology, and Near Term Implications," imagined an "Ezekiel 38" scenario in a where Syrian/Iranian missile attacks supported by Russia would rain "great hailstones, fire, and brimstone," upon Israel with such ferocity that Israel was forced into the nuclear response wanted by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Ahmadinejad, VII contends, is attempting to create a war that would be perceived as a major sign of the Mahdaviat, the Second Coming of the 12th Iman. He is, quite literally in a eschatological sense, attempting to bring about Armegeddon, and an Islamic version of the Rapture. Ahmadinejad wants to bring about the end of the world.

    As Ahmadinejad said Sept 17, 2005 in front of the United Nations:

    Dear Friends and Colleagues, from the beginning of time, humanity has longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace.

    O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace.

    As Iranian forces fire long-range rockets on Israel it seems quite apparent Ahmadinejad is willing to do all he can to hasten that emergence, and begin the end of man.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    July 13, 2006

    Feeling the Tip of the Spear

    As you've likely heard by now Israel has destroyed the runways at Beirut International Airport as part of a rapidly-evolving campaign against various Palestinian terrorist organizations. Some reports cited bombs, some rockets, some naval gunfire for the destruction of the runways, but nobody bothered to do a simple Google search to turn up this interesting purpose-built munition, the BLU-107 Durandal.

    According to Wikipedia, it works like this:

    Durandal is designed to be dropped from low altitudes. The fall of the bomb is retarded by a parachute. When, due to the parachute action, the bomb is vertical, it fires a rocket booster that accelerates it into the runway surface. The bomb explodes after it has penetrated below the surface. This results in a large and difficult to repair crater in the runway.

    Israel has used it to great effect before.

    A predecessor to Durandal was developed jointly by France and Israel during the 1960s to destroy air base runways. The weapon was used to devastating effect by the Israelis during the Six Day War.

    One of these days, the Arab nations surrounding Israel are going to realize that they are still militarily no match for the IDF. As the situation in Lebanon continues to escalate and Syria becomes a more likely target, they might find out sooner rather than later.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:40 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    July 11, 2006

    Echoes of London

    CNN reports at least six blasts during the evening rush hour on commuter trains in India's financial capital of Mumbai:

    At least six blasts have rocked commuter trains at rush hour in and around India's financial capital of Mumbai, with at least 15 deaths reported.

    Dozens of people were injured in the blasts, which took place around 6:30 p.m. (1300 GMT) on Tuesday when the trains were packed with commuters making their way home.

    A correspondent for CNN's sister network, CNN-IBN, reported seeing 15 bodies at the Matunga train station.

    Video from one station showed people with blood on them being treated, other commuters carrying victims and some people lying motionless near train tracks.

    At least one train was split in half by the explosion.

    A major terrorist attack on a democracy's financial hub... must be those damn Methodists again.

    Fox News is reporting seven bomb blasts.

    The Bangkok Post is reporting that all the explosions took place in the first-class compartments of the trains.

    Forbes, citing Indian television reports, states that dozens have been killed.

    Based upon these breaking preliminary reports, I suspect the Mumbai bombers may have used similar explosives to the ten-pound TATP backpack bombs that hit London just over a year ago.

    Pajamas Media is providing information as it comes in from Indian blogs and news reports, and seems to be ahead of the wire services. An Indian blogger, Deep Ganatra, is reporting at least 63 dead and 400 injured according to local television media reports.

    As of 11:00 AM, CAIR remains focused on a Koran that someone shot up in Tennessee and then threw at a mosque.

    Glad to see they have their priorities straight.

    Update: A fleeting moment of honesty at the Democratic Underground:

    Silence on this board stems from difficulty blaming this on George W. Bush.

    That's the fact.

    I'll pass on that $20 bet BTW, but I still think we should invade Canada.

    Have faith, little liberal.

    Your fellow DUers were able to blame Bush for the terror attacks in London, so I'm sure you'll be able to get your thought together long enough find an excuse to blame him for these attacks as well.

    Update: Deaths now reported as 130+, and is likely to climb with more than 300 injured. Indian Islamists have been arrested.

    CNN-IBN reports another bomb has been found and defused.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:00 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

    Military Recruiting Exceeds Goals

    Military recruiting for June once again met or exceeded goals across all four branches (h/t Paul at Adventurepan:

    • Marines: 105%
    • Army: 102%
    • Air Force:101%
    • Navy: 100%

    You'll note that the Marine Corps and Army, responsible for fielding most of the forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, have exceeded their goals by the largest margins, despite having higher target numbers than the other branches. They achieved this in the face of a mainstream media attempting to portray the military as rapists, racists, and murderers based up the alleged actions of a handful of men.

    Since October 1, all four branches have met or exceed their goals:

    • Army: 104%
    • Marines: 101%
    • Air Force: 101%
    • Navy: 100%

    Reserve forces recruiting has not been as even, but interesting enough, the Reserve and Guard forces most likely to be called upon for ground combat overseas (Army National Guard, Army Reserves, Marine Corps Reserves) have been the most successful in recruiting.

    Who are the recruits?

    Despite myths to the contrary, today's military is a far cry from the Vietnam-era draftees. Today's volunteers (PDF) are better educated than their peers, come from middle-class or upper middle-class homes, and tend to come from suburban and rural areas.

    Certain areas of the country are somewhat under over and underrepresented geographically according to recruiting data, with the southern and rural states over-represented, the urban northeast, north central and west coast states are under-represented. Interestingly enough, their seems to be a rough correlation to this map.

    Make of it what you will.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

    July 10, 2006

    Soldier Beheading Video Released

    If you can stand to watch it, The Jawa Report has obtained graphic footage of the bodies of two U.S. soldiers captured, tortured and killed in Iraq several weeks ago, as released in an al Qaeda video.

    Sadly, if the terrorists can be beleived, the attack was in response to the rape and murder of a nearby Iraqi girl as I theorized on July 3:

    On March 12, five soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Division allegedly raped a 15-year-old Iraqi girl killed her and her family, and then burned her body in an apparent attempt to hide the evidence of their crime.

    Roughly three months later, on June 23, one of those soldiers confessed after soldiers from the same platoon were ambushed, and two GIs captured in the ambush were horrifically tortured and killed. Was there a cause-and-effect, tit-for-tat exchange of atrocities south of Baghdad?

    Claims made in the video to this effect only bolster my theory.

    Update:

    Via Fox News:

    According to the SITE Institute, the statement by the insurgents said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news."

    "They decided to take revenge for their sister's honor," the statement said. "With Allah's help, they captured two soldiers of the same brigade as this dirty crusader."

    The Mujahedeen Shura Council is an umbrella organization of several Islamic extremist groups, including al Qaeda in Iraq. It claimed responsibility for shooting down a U.S. Apache helicopter in the Youssifiyah area in April.

    U.S. investigators had said there was no evidence linking the deaths of the three soldiers last month to the alleged rape-slaying.

    No physical evidence, perhaps, but the terrorists did cite the rape as their excuse, and they used what to my knowledge are new tactics to carry out the kidnapping. Time will tell.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:10 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    July 09, 2006

    "No Tears or Regrets"

    A video message to America's liberals, from the U.S. Marine Corps and Hollywood agent turned combat filmmaker, Pat Dollard.

    Not safe for work. Click the first video link.

    Bonus: Pat on Hannity & Colmes.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:47 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

    July 07, 2006

    Deadly But Dumb

    That short statement seems to be an accurate description of the terrorists in the latest reported terrorist plot against New York City, where an al Qaeda member captured in Lebanon and his cohorts planned to detonate vehicle-borne explosives in an attempt to breach tunnels into New York City. Their goal was flooding lower Manhattan.

    What idiots.

    For starters, it is quite doubtful that Allah's brain surgeons could have managed to construct the kind of bomb that could breach the Holland or any other tunnel into New York City. I won't bother explaining all the multiple reasons (and there are many) that their plot would fail to breach the tunnel walls, but lets just for a second look at what would happen to the rest of lower Manhattan in the event of a tunnel detonation.

    …

    …

    …

    Did you see what happened?

    Nothing.

    Certainly, there would be panic and injuries and deaths inside the tunnel and I do not in any way want to minimize that. There would smoke from the blast from the bomb, and the noise and commotion of the emergency response from New York's Finest and Bravest, but there would be no measurable physical damage outside the tunnel, as lower Manhattan is above sea level.

    The brain trust that came up with this cockamamie plan was hoping a blast under the riverbed—at a point lower than the bottom of the river—would somehow cause a Hurricane Katrina-like deluge that would flood the Financial District and collapse the U.S. economy. It would be laughable if they weren't planning this with such deadly earnest.

    This is the latest al Qaeda plan to attack the United States, but there have been others.

    A couple of homegrown Miami jihadi wannabes wanted to detonate an ANFO bomb to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago, but only managed to enlist the FBI in their support. They're in jail. More than a dozen Canadian hopefuls had a similar plot Up North, but they were also quickly detained.

    Just for the record, this plot was foiled by the NSA monitoring Internet communications between would-be jihadists. Funny. but I didn't feel my civil rights were trampled at all.

    The simple fact of the matter seems to be that the best minds al Qaeda have long since been killed or have gone to ground, leaving us with thankfully incompetent terrorists to plan most of the attacks against us. Most are no seasoned terrorists. Most are committing their first attacks.

    This makes them harder to find in some ways, and easier to foil in others.

    They're pitting their "B" team against our best and brightest, the same men and women that put the vast majority of their "A" Team in the ground, and it shows.

    They may still get lucky—we often heard say that they "only have to be right once"—but as each passing terrorist generation is ground to mulch in southwest Asia or sent packing for a federal prison, the odds of them getting everything right as they did on 9/11 grows increasingly remote.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:52 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    Remembering 7/7

    One year later, Pajamas Media has a roundup of bloggers remembering the 52 people murdered by Islamists in London.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    July 06, 2006

    New Docs Sugest Saddam May Have Trained/Equipped Taliban and Al Qaeda

    Ray Robinson has been busy with his translators over at the Saddam Dossier, and has unearthed documents that an Arab regime—most likely Saddam's Iraq as these documents were found in Iraqi computers—supplied training manuals and military assistance to both al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Among the instructions passed along to the terrorists are personal security instructions:

    Respected brother,

    Know that one of the main causes of information leaks is from personnel (translator's note: personnel talking), this is why we try to cooperate with you so that neither you or one of your brothers becomes the cause of a catastrophe that might hit one of the brothers or all of them.

    Please follow these instructions:

    1- Know as much as you need. (translator's note: don't ask too many questions)
    2- Don't talk too much; it is said that "silence is wisdom."
    3- It is recommended that all personnel wear Afghan clothing so they do not stand out from other people.
    4- All the brothers should go to the market by themselves, alone.
    5- It is not advised to move alone at night. (At night, walk the streets on foot)
    6- As much as possible do not disclose your identity as an Arab.
    7- Avoid excitement whether by glorifying or bashing.
    8- Avoid being observed (translator's note: being followed and observed) and always notice who is walking behind you or following you from a distance; review the observation manual.
    9- All brothers should be always armed even if with a small knife in their pockets.
    10- Check your pockets and never leave important papers in them when moving around.
    11- Always be careful in personal relations with Afghans or Pakistanis.
    12- Avoid giving any information about the locations of your brothers.
    13- It is forbidden to discuss work issues with the women.
    14- It is forbidden to take children to parks and offices.
    15- It is forbidden to talk about your work or the nature of your mission with anybody who is not related to it.
    16- Beware of habit in your daily routine because the rule says, "Routine is the enemy of security."
    17- If you are moving and have a large amount of money, beware of showing it in the market so you do not attract robbers.
    18- Always beware when you are talking about the work because somebody not related to your work, the women or the children, might hear you.
    19- Beware of rapid and spontaneous friendships with Afghans who speak Arabic.
    20- In public places beware of talking about work issues because some Afghans know Arabic but you cannot notice this.
    21- Always be forgiving when you are buying from, selling to or dealing with Afghans and avoid trouble.
    22- Children are not allowed to go out by themselves whether to buy stuff or play.
    23- Always make sure about the identity of your neighbors and classify them as regular people, opponents or allies.

    While Robinson notes that it is not certain while Arab regime wrote these instructions along with the others contained in this translated document, he also states:

    This document supports a few strong conclusions. It clearly proves that an Arab country was providing professional military assistance to Arab operatives in Afghanistan. While the document does not identify the country of origin of these Arab men, it's a logical omission since it wouldn't make sense to name the country in a memo whose purpose is to instruct how to hide one's nationality.

    It is important to note, however, that in 1999, Iraq — along with Syria — was again identified by the U.S. Department of State as a government sponsor of terrorism, the only two Arab nations classified as state sponsors of terrorism at that time.

    This document, of course, will be contested by those who refuse to believe that Saddam supported terrorism. These are the same people who refuse to acknowledge the fact that Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, two of the preeminent terrorist masterminds prior to the emergence of Osama bin Laden, lived in Baghdad as Saddam's guest for many years. These are the same people who refuse to acknowledge the fact that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was made possible by an Iraqi-American bomb-builder, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who returned to Baghdad and continued to live in Iraq for a decade following his mission.

    For people so deeply and philosophically invested in denial, Robinson's work can never openly be acknowledged as being correct. To do so would mean that Bush didn't lie, and that Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations was real.

    For the rest of us, however, every document that Ray Robinson's team translates helps to build a picture of a Baathist regime every bit as dangerous as we thought it was.

    Note: Mr. Robinson let me know he also taped an interview on Fox News television about these findings that will air every hour this morning.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:06 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    July 05, 2006

    Farewell

    When it's my turn, I stride slowly, execute a right face, and bring my hand slowly to my brow. As I bring my hand back to my side I'm aware of the moisture in my eyes, which turn down as I execute a left face and leave the platform. I see for the first time how full the room really is, as there are many soldiers standing along the back wall. It's all I can do not to run outside, into daylight, away from that monument that means that my friend will never see his dreams of becoming a drill sergeant, an underwater welder, a husband or a father come to life. Run away from the fear that one day my own picture will be in front of that monument, that I'll never see my fiancée or my parents or my brothers and sisters again. Run away from the fear that I'll never become a teacher and raise a family. But I don't run. I walk as quickly as discipline allows outside, where my friends wait and share my grief.

    A fallen soldier is remembered by another in Iraq, at Blue Crab Boulevard.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Turning On Al Qaeda

    Via Captain's Quarters, one of the oddest requests so far of the Long War shows that the President is winning the War on Terror:

    Iraq's government is studying a request from some local insurgent leaders to supply them with weapons so they can turn on the heavily armed foreign fighters who were once their allies, according to two Iraqi lawmakers.

    Leaders claiming to represent about 11 insurgent groups asked for weapons to fight foreign al-Qaeda elements in Iraq, said Haider al-Ibadi, a Shiite lawmaker and member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.

    "They want to take part in the war against terrorists," said al-Ibadi, who supports the proposal. "They claim they could wipe out the terrorists and work with the government."

    Many of us understood months or years ago that as the Iraqi Army matured, it would eventually force the various insurgent groups to the bargaining table. The Iraqi Army is better trained and better equipped than insurgent groups, in what is essentially a war of attrition that insurgent groups cannot realistically hope to win.

    At the same time, "red on red" violence has been growing in Iraq for soem time, as native insurgents have increasingly turned upon foreign-led terrorist cells that often target Iraqi civilians.

    The Iraqi government should, of course, refuse to arm the insurgents. Arms that target al Qaeda on day could easily be turned back on Iraqi forces the next. Better armed militias are not in the nation's best interests, no matter who they claim to support.


    But the request tells us two things:

    1. The native insurgents feel they lack appropriate arms and ammunition. Desert conditions take a toll on even rugged Russian-designed arms, and tend to degrade ammunition. Coalition missions to dry up "rat lines" bring fresh weaponry from neighboring countries may be working.
    2. Foreign fighters and those loyal to them have worn out their welcome among native Iraqis. Even the mostly Sunni insurgency seems intent on driving out al Qaeda. The fact that this new willingness to publicly engage al Qaeda occurred after Musab al-Zarqawi's death is perhaps not accidental.

    If talks between the Iraqi government and the various Sunni insurgent groups can reach an agreement and maintain that agreement, the Army can then turn its attention to the sectarian violence in Iraq, and assist in cleaning out and disarming the various militias.

    Iraq may not be free of sectarian violence for some time to come, but the fact that the insurgency seems to be losing its desire to fight a losing war is a step in the right direction that even the most diehard liberal will find hard to ignore.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    What You've Heard About His Weapons Is True

    From the AP:

    North Korea tests 7th missile amid furor

    North Korea test-fired another missile Wednesday, intensifying the furor ignited when the reclusive regime launched at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong, earlier in the day.

    Seven firings, none apparently lasting longer than six minutes, and the keystone was a spectacular failure that expired 40 seconds after launch.

    Is this an impoverished Asisan dictatorship trying to project power, or Ron Jeremy's comeback tour?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:51 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 03, 2006

    Iraq War Rape/Murder Suspect Arrested in Western NC

    Via the News & Observer:

    Federal prosecutors charged a veteran of the Iraq war with murder and rape Monday following an investigation into the killing of an Iraqi woman and members of her family. Steven D. Green, a 21-year-old former private first class who was discharged from the Army, appeared in a federal magistrate's courtroom in Charlotte Monday. Prosecutors said Green and other soldiers entered the home of a family of Iraqi civilians, where he and others raped a member of the family before Green shot her and three of her relatives to death.

    The FBI said its agents arrested Green on Friday in Marion, N.C., and he is being held without bond pending a transfer to Louisville, Ky. Green had served with the 101st Airborne, based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

    The case is being handled by federal prosecutors because Green has been discharged from the Army. According to an affidavit filed along with the criminal complaint, Green was discharged "before this incident came to light. Green was discharged due to a personality disorder."

    Green was alleged to have killed three of the four family members, and participated in the rape. He could face the death penalty if convicted. He is the only soldier beign investigated in the Mahmudiyah rape/murder case to have been discharged.

    Marion, NC is a small town near Lake James, west of Morganton.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    This Sounds Familiar Somehow...

    It's a regular Bush vs. Gordita:

    Mexico's presidential election was too close to call Sunday, with a leftist offering himself as a savior to the poor and a conservative free-trader both declaring themselves the winner. Officials said they won't know who won for days.

    Electoral officials said they could not release the results of Sunday night's quick count of the votes, which they previously said would happen only if the leading candidates were within one percentage point of each other. Luis Carlos Ugalde, president of the Federal Electoral Institute, said an official count would begin Wednesday, and a winner will be declared once it's complete.

    As Dafydd notes at Big Lizards, the leftist candidate says that according to his figures he won, while the more conservative candidate notes the official preliminary count is showing him with a slim but important lead.

    Under Mexican law, in the event of a tie, a winner is selected based upon the best human sacrifice to Aztec god of civilization Quetzalcoatl.*

    * Not actually true, but it would be considered by most international observers to be a more humane way to settle a presidential election that the U.S. court system.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    The Amontillado Option

    It was an affront to common sense, a willful and undermining misreading of the Geneva Conventions, and a blatantly unconstitutional stab at grabbing power from both the Legislative and Executive branches, but the Supreme Court's much disputed and reviled Hamdan decision—which some have stated is on par with Dredd Scott and Pessy vs. Ferguson as "a great 'self-inflicted wound'"—might actually have a silver lining after all, as pointed out briefly by Captain Ed:

    The ruling from the Supreme Court that essentially grants terrorists Geneva Convention protections needs to get reversed as quickly as possible. The court's majority decision declared that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) issued by Congress in 2001 somehow did not cover the establishment of military tribunals for unlawful combatants, which leaves Congress the opening to fill the gap.

    I actually prefer the method that Justice Stevens explicitly left open to the Bush administration in his opinion: leave them detained until hostilities cease in the war on terror. Radical Islam does not leave many deterrents to its lunatic pawns. Death in combat or a summary execution suits them fine. Public trials give them the opportunity to exploit our civil justice system as platforms for their screeds, as Zacarias Moussaoui showed. However, the perpetual and anonymous detention offered by Stevens does give the terrorists the one situation they find most repellent -- and that could persuade at least a few of them that taking on the US holds nothing but a miserable stretch of decades in an iron cage, with no public outlet for their hatred.

    I've mentioned in the past that if we are going to extend Geneva Protections to terrorists (who are disbarred from Geneva Protections due to Article 4.1.2, no matter what Justice Stevens says), then we should specifically use the portion of the Geneva Conventions that favors us the most.

    The world has been at war with Islamic fundementalists at shifting borders for almost 1,400 years. More than millennia of precedent indicates that Islam—which divides the world into the House of War and House of Submission—will be at war with the rest of the world as long as it exists.

    While President Bush was taking steps with the tribunals struck down by Hamdan to provide some sort of attempt at providing trials, perhaps he shouldn't have bothered.

    Ironically, the Supreme Court now gives us a containment option straight out of a horror story.

    Edgar Alan Poe's The Cask of Amontillado is perhaps one of the most classic horror stories; a man repeatedly wronged by another lures his victim into a dank catacombs where he first chains him, and then proceeds to wall him up alive.

    Justice John Paul Stevens and the four other prevailing members of the Court have now set the stage for the terrorists we've captured to remain under U.S. custody without any sort of trial whatsoever for decades to come. They may conceivably be confined as prisoners of war—in good health, not bound in catacombs, mind you—until either they expire or jihad against the West ceases.

    The Court has created the chance for the perpetual internment of captured terrorists without the mess of a jury trial. Somehow, I doubt liberals will be as happy with the Hamdan decision as they once were if this or following Administrations uses this option.

    Frankly, I prefer tribunals, but I could force myself to live with this.

    In pace requiescat!

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Fly Like a Butterfly...

    ...sting like General Ali.

    Via the Real Ugly American.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Random Acts?

    On March 12, five soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Division allegedly raped a 15-year-old Iraqi girl killed her and her family, and then burned her body in an apparent attempt to hide the evidence of their crime.

    Roughly three months later, on June 23, one of those soldiers confessed after soldiers from the same platoon were ambushed, and two GIs captured in the ambush were horrifically tortured and killed. Was there a cause-and-effect, tit-for-tat exchange of atrocities south of Baghdad? At least one key player seems to think so:

    The official in Iraq whom the wire service quoted said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one of them to reveal the rape and slaying on June 22.

    Would "feelings of guilt" mean that this soldier felt the torture and murder of men from his platoon was in retaliation for his own acts? Absent any other explanation, it seems a plausible assumption.

    patrolled

    It is, of course, quite possible and even probable that the ambush and capture of Menchaca and Tucker at their Yusifiyah checkpoint was an act completely unassociated with the rape and murders down the road at Mahmudiyah. It seems that most of the neighbors were willing to believe this was a sectarian killing performed by Shiite militiamen.

    But there was at least one notable exception.

    Omar Janabi, a neighbor of the slain family, seems to be the star witness of this case, not only having conversations with the mother about here fears of a potential assault before the incident, but was also among the first to see the bodies.:

    Janabi was one of the first people to arrive at the house after the attack, he said Saturday, speaking to a Washington Post special correspondent at the home of local tribal leaders. He said he found Abeer sprawled dead in a corner, her hair and a pillow next to her consumed by fire, and her dress pushed up to her neck. "I was sure from the first glance that she had been raped," he said. Despite the reassurances he had given the girl's mother earlier, Janabi said, "I wasn't surprised what had happened, when I found that the suspicion of the mother was correct."

    And yet, three months passed without any indication that Janabi went to the Iraqi military or police to report his suspicions. Perhaps it was a cultural difference; perhaps it was fear of possible retribution, but in any event he believed U.S. soldiers from this unit was responsible for the capital crimes against his neighbors.

    A Sunni in the heart of the Sunni insurgency, Janabi most likely "knew somebody who knew somebody" who would be capable of a retaliatory strike—perhaps a strike that took three months to reconnoiter, plan, and execute—that might send a message to the soldiers who committed these rapes.

    Perhaps the tortuous deaths of men from Company B, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment weren't quite a random act of barbarity after all.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:57 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    July 02, 2006

    Bloodthirsty Knave Gets Unmarked Grave

    He's worm food now:

    Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie told The Associated Press that al-Zarqawi had been buried in a "secret location" in Baghdad.

    The U.S. military confirmed the burial but declined to give more details.

    "The remains of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi were turned over to the appropriate government of Iraq officials and buried in accordance with Muslim customs and traditions," the military said in an e-mailed statement. "Anything further than that would be addressed by the Iraqi government."

    al-Zarqawi died approximately an hour after sustaining catastrophic injuries in a June 7 airstrike. The cause of death was listed as a primary (blast) injury to the lung.

    The last thing he saw on this earthly plain was American and Iraqi soldiers standing over him, side-by-side. I take some small satisfaction in that.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    June 29, 2006

    WMD fired at Israel...Or Not?

    Or so a Palestinian militant group claims (via Drudge):

    A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday. The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement. The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket. "The al-Aqsa Brigades have fired one rocket with a chemical warhead" at southern Israel, Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the group, said in Gaza. An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army had not detected that any such rocket was fired, nor was there any report of such a weapon hitting Israel.

    Silly al-Reuters reporters. They weren't supposed to release that story until tomorrow.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    June 26, 2006

    Crash

    That crashing sound you hear is shatering of the liberal myth that Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't have ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Of course it did, and the documented ties are getting stronger:

    Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known Al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad.

    Hussein had been host to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Abdul Rahman Yasin, and so adding more terrorists to the Baghdad social scene would make perfect sense.

    If nothing else, Saddam was consistent in his ties with the "movers and shakers" of Islamic terrorism.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:43 AM | Comments (37) | TrackBack

    June 23, 2006

    Killing Times

    Hi Eric! Hi James!

    Once again, I see you've taken it upon yourselves to disclose national security secrets (I refuse to link to the article, thus putting advertising dollars in your pockets), and your good buddy Bill was more than happy to let it fly, even though the program you compromised:

    • was legal
    • had congressional oversight
    • had built-in protections against abuse
    • was effective at catching terrorists

    Does that just about just about cover it? Maybe. Maybe not.

    I tend to agree with quite a few others who think you have gone far too far, once again.

    At first, I caught myself nodding my head when Patterico said:

    I am biting down on my rage right now. I'll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I'll say only this: it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.

    And they are dangerous, but I think Patrick is wrong to even imply a truck bomb should be used against the New York Times. Even when paraphrasing someone else as a dark form of humor, that is a horrible thought. Someone radicalized enough could get it into his head to try to build such a bomb, and were he successful in detonating it, many innocent people in nearby buildings could be killed or injured.

    Besides, the editorial staff, hidden behind the impenetrable wall of Times Select, would walk away untouched.

    Nor do I advocate the much more precise use of small arms, in case some of you were thinking that route. There should be a chilling of the New York Times staff to run stories such as these, but cooling staffers to room temperature isn't the way to do it. Monetary damage is all they seem to understand.

    Can you file lawsuits as private citizens on behalf of national security against the Times?Can their sources be indicted for exposing classified information, and how do we bring about pressure to bear on the government to pursue such charges?

    I'd like to see the terrorist protectionist NY Times broken as a business, and I'm open to suggestions.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:27 AM | Comments (30) | TrackBack

    June 22, 2006

    Democratic Underground: Miami Terror Raid Keeps the Black Man Down

    The Democratic Underground is all over the Miami terror arrests, quickly discerning the real reason for the raid:

    This raid sounds like b.s. and voter intimidation to me This is more of J.E.B.'s campaign to keep black people in Florida from voting. Bet on it.
    dunuts

    The Democratic Underground: Because sometimes, you feel like a nut.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:42 PM | Comments (30) | TrackBack

    Sears Tower Targeted For Terror

    target

    ABC News has the details:

    ABC News has learned that federal agents, including the FBI, are launching a series of raids tonight targeting a suspected terror cell based in Miami.

    According to sources familiar with the investigation, the group allegedly planned to bomb the FBI building in Miami and the Sears Tower in Chicago.

    The group has been under surveillance for some time and was infilitrated by a government informant who allegedly led them to believe he was an Islamic radical. The suspects are described as African Americans and at least one man of Caribbean descent.

    I guess that NSA "domestic spying" program works pretty good, doesn't it? (Yes, I know it sounds like a classic infiltration operation, but still.) At least one was an illegal alien.

    This operation is on-going, expect more details to follow.

    As always, Allah is on top of it. It's almost like he has something to do with Islamic terrorism...

    Update: moved D.U. quote to it's own thread.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:41 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    The Santorum Code

    We've now had roughly 15 hours since Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Pete Hoestra announced in a hastily-called news conference that a newly declassified portion of a report from the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) confirmed that approximately 500 chemical weapons have been recovered in Iraq since 2003.

    Since that time, the major media outlets have greeted this story with a virtual news blackout, leaving this story to the blogosphere to analyze.

    Predictably, reaction to this story seems to fall along party lines. Many conservative bloggers covering the story see this as an absolute vindication of the Bush Administration, and are ecstatic. Quite a few others are more cautious, hoping to see more in the way of details released from the still-classified NGIC report from which the summary was culled.

    On the other side of the political spectrum, many liberal blogs seemed almost rudderless in the hours after the story broke, almost as if they were waiting for guidance from either the silent media or equally quiet top-flight liberal blogs. Since then, they have mostly seemed to fallen in line behind Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post, who is taking the position, "nothing to see here/this doesn't count."

    So what do we really have, and what do we really know?

    We know for a fact that under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi began cultivating the development of chemical weapons in 1971. An article from the United Nations News Centre tells us further (h/t Flopping Aces:

    Iraq first started exploring chemical weapons in 1971, and reviews developments through the establishment of a “large-scale chemical weapons programme†in 1981. The capacity expanded from there to the point that “according to Iraq, the use of chemical weapons achieved its major purpose and made a significant impact on the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war.â€

    According to declarations made by Iraq, in the period from 1981 to 1991 the chemical weapon programme produced approximately 3,850 tons of the chemical warfare agents mustard, tabun, sarin and VX, the report states.

    Of the total of some 3,850 tons of chemical warfare agents produced, approximately 3,300 tons of agents were weaponized in different types of aerial bombs, artillery munitions and missile warheads.

    In the period from 1981 to 1991, Iraq weaponized some 130,000 chemical munitions in total. Of these, over 101,000 munitions were used in combat, according to Iraq, in the period from 1981 to 1988.

    Iraq declared that some 28,500 chemical munitions remained unused as of January 1991; about 5,500 filled munitions were destroyed by coalition forces during the war in 1991, while another 500 filled munitions were declared destroyed unilaterally by Iraq. “These last two figures were partially verified by United Nations inspectors,†the report states.

    The bulk of the destruction of some 22,000 filled munitions occurred under the supervision of the UN inspectors in accordance with Security Council resolution 687 (1991) – the "ceasefire resolution" which ended the war – in the period from 1991 to 1994. During the collection of chemical weapons for destruction after the 1991 war, Iraq stated that it was not able to locate some 500 chemical munitions.

    Iraq claimed it had 28,500 chemical weapons in 1991, and about 5,500 were destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War bringing the total to 23,000. Iraq then claims to have destroyed 500 munitions on their own and 22,000 weapons were destroyed under the supervision of U.N. weapons inspectors. This leaves us with roughly 500 chemical weapons that Iraq was unable to locate.

    Are these same 500 chemical weapons that Iraq was unable to account for the same 500 chemical weapons that Santorum and Hoekstra revealed that U.S. forces have captured, and the same 500 that Dafna Linzer claims were buried in the desert near the Iran-Iraq border during their 1980-88 war?

    If it can be verified that these are the missing 500 munitions from Saddam's declaration to the United Nations, then the accounting of Saddam's known weapons of mass destruction should be very close to complete. There should be no more significant caches of chemical weapons found in Iraq. It took 15 years and a war, but his chemical weapons have apparently all been accounted for and no significant quantities of thes munitions seem to have fallen into the hands of the various terrorist groups that Saddam cultivated in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

    This news in and of itself would seem to be a significant victory.

    But this is not how this story has been presented by Rick Santorum and Pete Hoekstra. They make the presentation that the 500 weapons found by U.S forces since the invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces justify the WMD rationale, one of several reasons and by far the one most publicized used to justify this conflict.

    I wish that this did justify that rationale, but it does not.

    Our rationale was based on the thought that Saddam was continuing to develop and experiment with weapons of mass destruction, and that he continued to have the capability to build chemical and biological weapons. Saddam, indeed, led the world to believe that he still had this capability, and it wasn't until after the war that we discovered that he may have been bluffing all along. We have found no more modern (post 1991) chemical weapons in Iraq. We have found no smoking gun showing concrete proof of more recent development, and it is quite possible we never may.

    It does, however, seem to close the book on the WMDs known to have existed in Iraq as of January 1991, as declared by the government of Saddam Hussein. The 500 munitions Saddam's Army could not locate seem to have been recovered by the U.S military. While small quantities of these weapons may still turn up, no significant caches should remain to be discovered.

    That fact alone, that we recovered these approximately 500 "lost" munitions, is reason enough to celebrate, but it neither proves nor disproves the existence of a post-1991 weapons program.

    If any significant future caches are found, however, then the game will indeed be afoot, and both the media and doubters in the blogosphere will be out of valid excuses.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    WMD Media Blackout

    To put it mildly, this bears discussion:

    The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

    "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

    Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

    Or at least, one might think this would bear discussion, whether Santorum and Hoekstra are right or wrong.

    If correct, their claims of found chemical weapons—mustard gas or sarin, filled or unfilled, degraded or in perfect condition—would seemingly vindicate the Bush Administration and bury a key canard of leftist opposition to the war, that soldiers and civilians have "died for a lie."

    Likewise, it would be worth it for the media/anti-war/Democratic Party camps to begin questioning the story, on the chance that Santorum and Hoekstra have buried themselves with inaccurate information.

    Everyone should be talking about this… so why aren't they?

    While Fox News runs a story about the Santorum/Hoestra release, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe have taken the code of omertà as of midnight, though the Washington Post, to its slim credit, squeaked out a page A10 mention essentially claiming that these WMDs didn't count, even though they provide exactly zero support for their claims.

    With the exception of Fox News, the WMD story and the underlying newly declassified six paragraph summary (PDF) seems to be the subject of a major news blackout.

    Is this silence the sound of fear?

    7:00 AM Update: According to a Google News search for WMDs, all the news organizations cited above still refuse to discuss this news.

    Shocking.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:32 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

    June 21, 2006

    Jeep Jihadi to Plead Guilty

    Via the News & Observer:

    The man accused of driving a rented SUV onto the UNC campus in March and striking nine people told a judge he plans to plead guilty to the charges against him. Mohammed Taheri-Azar entered the courtroom this morning to ask that he be allowed to represent himself. A judge had ordered the public defender's office to work with him while it was determined whether he was competent.

    But after being told he would have to submit to a psychiatric evaluation in order to do that, the 23-year-old said he would rather keep his court-appointed lawyer.

    Taheri-Azar told Superior Court Judge Carl Fox he had met a few times with the psychiatrist and psychologist and "they don't appear to be very good psychologists and psychiatrists in my oinion[sic]."

    Taheri-Azar has said in letters and in a 911 call that he wanted to kill people to avenge Muslim deaths around the world when he drove a rented SUV through The Pit, the main gathering spot on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus, March 3.

    Do you think UNC-Chapel Hill will finally admit this was a homegrown Islamic terrorist attack?

    Me neither.

    Update: I've been told that it isn't unusual for Carolina graduates to refuse psychological evaluations, so perhaps we shouldn't read too much into that part of the story.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:26 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    Higher Ground

    When I came across this comment by Markos "Kos" Moulitsas via LGF, I was momentarily speechless:

    There's a reason the Geneva Conventions exist. We've lost the moral high ground. What a fucking waste of a war.

    Note I said, "momentarily."

    You would think that Kos, as an Army veteran and a graduate of the Boston University School of Law, might have the inkling that what he states above is incorrect.

    After all, the Geneva Convention was written to protect soldiers, militiamen, and civilians, not terrorists. As a matter of specific fact, groups such as terrorists seem specifically exempted from Geneva's protections [my bold]:

    • Articles 1 and 2 cover which parties are bound by GCIII
    • Article 2 specifies when the parties are bound by GCIII
      • That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered by GCIII;
      • That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
      • That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
    • Article 3 covers internal armed conflict (not of an international character) and it provides similar protections for combatants as those described in the rest of this document for a prisoner of war. That Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs; shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. It also lays out some basic rules for the treatment of all people combatants and non-combatants alike. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.
    • Article 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Article 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines prisoners of war to include:
      • 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
      • 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
        • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
        • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
        • that of carrying arms openly;
        • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
      • 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
      • 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a vaild identity card issued by the military they support.
      • 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
      • 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
      • 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

    At no point in the section above are terrorists granted protection by the Geneva Convention. Article 4.1.2 stipulates that groups to be granted Geneva rights as "militias or other volunteer corps" must fulfill "all of the following conditions."

    • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
    • that of carrying arms openly;
    • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    Islamic terrorists, under the guise of al Qaeda or the insurgent Mujahedeen Shura Council, have never, at any point in the war, fulfilled these required four conditions, and very rarely meet even one. By definition, they are therefore exempted from Geneva's protections, and can be—quite legally—shot on sight.

    As Jonah Goldberg notes:

    We've all seen countless WWII movies about how soldiers out of uniform can be shot as spies under the Geneva Convention. Well, all of al Qaeda's soldiers are spies. And they most emphatically do not provide their prisoners with ping-pong tables and dormitories. They cut off their heads and put the pictures on the Internet and TV. The same goes for Osama's allies and fellow travelers in Iraq.

    The liberal punditocracy seems to think it's an obvious fact that the Geneva Convention should apply to the war on terrorism, even though the plain text of the Geneva Convention applies as much to the war on terror as it does to the battle between the Federation and the Klingon Empire.

    By hiding among civilians, torturing and beheading captives, and acting like, well, terrorists, these people have, by their own actions, exempted themselves from Geneva's protections.

    Kos states and apparently believes "we have lost the moral high ground" to the kind of barbarians who torture, mutilate, and kill their captives. This is the same Kos that said of American contractors killed, mutilate, burned and then hung from a bridge in Fallujah, "screw them."

    It seems to me that Markos Moulitsas is the last person to be lecturing others about ground clearly so far above his reach.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:11 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    Murtha's Haditha Cover-Up Story Exposed As A Lie

    At least one part of Congressman John Murtha's Haditha story has now been conclusively debunked.

    Murtha had maintained that the incident that culminated in the deaths of up to 24 Iraqi civilians at the hands of Marines after a fatal convoy ambush had been covered up:

    Mr Murtha, himself a former Marine, charged that US military authorities had paid compensation to the families of the victims, indicating they had assumed responsibility for the deaths. "They paid people $1,500 to $2,500. This doesn't happen unless it comes at the highest authority," Mr Murtha told CNN.

    Asked if he meant victims' compensation, Mr Murtha said: "Yes. And that doesn't happen ... if it's an explosive device."

    Mr Murtha repeated his accusation that the Marines had sought to cover up the killings."This is what worries me. We're fighting a war about America's ideals and democracy's ideas and something like this happens, they try to cover it up," he said. "It is as bad as Abu Ghraib, if not worse."

    An independent Army General who investigated the charges of a cover-up has completed his report, and concludes otherwise:

    The general charged with investigating whether Marines tried to cover up the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha has completed his report, finding that Marine officers failed to ask the right questions, an official close to the investigation said Friday.

    Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

    I imagine many netroots liberals reading this account published in the L.A. Times will immediately dismiss the report as a whitewash, saying that though an Army General investigated a Marine incident, it is still a military cover-up.

    shootOfficers

    But never fear. They still support the troops.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:30 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    Flags

    Some have more meaning than others.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    June 20, 2006

    False Equivalation

    Will all the liberals out there equivalating how Americans treat captured terrorists with how terrorists treat those unlucky souls they capture, please take the time to remind me when that last time was American soldiers did anything like this:


    The bodies of two U.S. soldiers found in Iraq Monday night were mutilated and booby-trapped, military sources said Tuesday.

    Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker went missing after a Friday attack on a traffic control checkpoint in Yusufiya, 12 miles (20 km) south of Baghdad.

    The sources said the two men had suffered severe trauma.

    The bodies also had been desecrated, and a visual identification was impossible -- part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said.

    A tip from Iraqi civilians led officials to the bodies, military sources told CNN. The discovery was made about 7:30 p.m. Monday.

    Not only were the bodies booby-trapped, but homemade bombs also lined the road leading to the victims, an apparent effort to complicate recovery efforts and target recovery teams, the sources said.
    It took troops 12 hours to clear the area of roadside bombs. One of the bombs exploded, but there were no injuries.

    The terrorists captured two of our men, and what steps did they take?

    The did not take them to a tropical island where captives are so well fed that almost all gain weight. Nor were they forced to put womens underwear on their heads, and they did not have fake blood thrown at them, or pull other fraternity/reality TV-grade tricks.

    But I don't here liberals complaining about the actions of the terrorists, and how uncomfortable it must be for those captured by terrorists to be mauled with a power drill, or scorched with acetylene torches, or castrated, or beheaded, or hung, dangling from meat hooks while still alive, or raped with found objects.

    No, the left can bear to shed no real, heart-felt words of sympathy, and they drop crocodile tears as they quickly use this occasion to bash both the Adminstration and the troops.

    If we treat terrorists like anything other than privileged dinner guests it is torture by their sophomoric definition, and it's the President's fault. If terrorists, in turn, perform unspeakable acts of barbarity on our soldiers, it's still the President's fault.

    Nothing is ever the fault of the terrorists, and the United States is never, ever in the right.

    Do I question their patriotism?

    No.

    Where they stand is abundantly clear.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack

    Funding "Young Americans"

    Pat Dollard, former Hollywood agent turned Iraq War documentary filmmaker needs your help:

    I gave it all up, my life and my income, to serve my country in the War in Terror, with the one weapon a 42 year old civilian like me could use: a camera. I'm bleeding my life savings dry, and we all need your help with finishing funds for the project. I may soon have to go back to Ramadi to cover a potential large operation in the city ala Fallujah. It's a risk, as usual, that I'm willing to take. Any donation you can make towards "Young Americans" will be greatly appreciated, and more importantly, will have a huge impact on America by helping to balance out the non-stop BS liberal message we are all drowning in. All contributors, if requested, will be named in the end title sequence with a shared Associate Producer credit. Please rally around the project, the Marines, and America.

    At my request Pat set up a Paypal account (via the link above), which will allow you to help contribute to the completion of this project. Please consider doing so. Every dollar helps Pat get one step closer to finishing a real reality series that will show America the war in Iraq as fought by the Marines that the mainstream media would never dare show you.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Bodies of Missing Soldiers Apparently Found

    Sadly, I think this is what we expected:

    A high-ranking official with the Iraqi Defense Ministry told CNN on Tuesday that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers were found Saturday south of Baghdad. No more details were immediately available.

    "Two bodies have been found," Maj. William Wilhoite, spokesman for Multi-National Forces-Iraq, told CNN.

    "We haven't made any confirmation if they're the two U.S. soldiers we're looking for."
    He said he did not know whether the bodies showed signs of torture. "I haven't heard anything through our official channels," he said.

    "Obviously, before we made any announcement, if it was our soldiers, we'd have to make notification to the families," Wilhoite said.

    Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon, went missing Friday after an attack on a traffic checkpoint near the town of Yusufiya, 12 miles (20 km) south of Baghdad.

    The Washington Post reports that the two men had been tortured:

    Two U.S. soldiers missing since an attack on a checkpoint last week have been found dead near a power plant in Yusifiyah, south of Baghdad, according to an Iraqi defense official.

    Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Muhammed-Jassim, head of operations at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, said the soldiers had been "barbarically" killed and that there were traces of torture on their bodies.

    As I predicted yesterday, the media quickly found their anti-war, anti-Bush soundbite:

    The news is going to be heartbreaking for my family," Menchaca's uncle, Ken MacKenzie, told NBC's "Today" show.

    He said the United States should have paid a ransom for the two soldiers from money seized from Saddam Hussein.

    "I think the U.S. was too slow to react to this," MacKenzie said. "Because the U.S. did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid with his life."

    MacKenzie is entitled to grieve, but he cannot blame this on anyone other than the terrorists. Today Show host Matt Lauer even called him on it.

    Once his nephew surrendered he was a dead man, and there was nothing, no "plan" or bribe that would have changed this outcome.

    The terrorists of the Mujahedeen Shura Council probably think they have scored a victory, and indeed, in the short-term, they have. They can claim that after three years of war, they finally captured and killed a grand total of three U.S. soldiers. Accounts of the capture and killing of U.S. soldiers will receive a great amount of press worldwide. Arab media will likely present the deaths as a thinly veiled triumph, and the western media will use it as an opportunity to once again call for disengagement, as will many Democrats.

    But these killings will not be received favorably by the U.S. military in Iraq, which will likely step up operations to hunt down and destroy terror and insurgent cells operating in this part of Iraq. Though official orders will not be given, perhaps U.S. forces will not be so inclined to take prisoners after this incident. Insurgents and their al Qaeda allies set the tone of giving U.S. forces no quarter when they took prisoners.

    They made a huge mistake.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:16 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    June 16, 2006

    New Docs Link Saddam to Taliban

    Despite the shrill cries to the contrary, the Iraqi War is part of the War on Terror, as occasional C.Y. poster Ray Robinson shows with further analysis of newly-translated documents linking Saddam with the Taliban (bold in original):

    I am the one who started with this issue, the relation between Taliban and Iraq, and it is our idea. The brothers in Afghanistan are facing the pressure of America, and are struggling against America and aim to have some connections between Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is a good start to establish the relations with Iraq and Libya and our association has taken this responsibility upon her. I already met with Mr. the Vice-President and the previous head of the directorate, may God rest his soul (translator's note: apparently the head of the directorate passed away) and both proposed that Hekmatyar and the Taliban should get to an agreement. I spoke with the Taliban about this issue and they started meeting with delegations from the Islamic Party, and I met Mullah Omar and his reply was positive.

    As a party, our stand is that there should be an agreement between the Taliban and the rest of the opposition, Shah Ahmad Massoud and Rabbani. And Mullah Omar said that we are looking towards this and that (not clear) and (not clear) and Ahmad Al Kilani and Jalal Al Din Hakkani do not oppose us. Therefore, Hekmatyar is on the positive way but we are in a war situation and that needs a lot of trust, and there are hurdles to this because he fought us and killed us and he has problems with the opposition in the North and with us. After repeated contacts we will reach an agreement, but in the form of steps. Concerning the relations with Iraq, he said that they are our brothers and Muslims and are facing pressures from America, like us and like Sudan and Libya. And he (Mullah Omar) desires to get closer relations with Iraq and that Iraq may help us in reducing our problems. Now we are facing America and Russia. He requested the possibility of Iraq intervening to build a friendship with Russia since Russia is no more the number one enemy. And we request Iraq's help from a brotherly point of view. They are ready for this matter and they prefer that the relation between Iraq and Taliban be an independent relation from Hekmatyar's relation with the Taliban. We want practical steps concerning this issue and especially the relationship with the Taliban and (not clear, but could be Iraq).

    Robinson then supplies analysis of the translation, including this description of the meeting:

    So it seems possible the IIS Chief died just prior to this meeting and the Maulana is meeting with the new IIS chief. The new IIS chief would have been Tahir Jalil Habbush al Tikriti, who according to the Multi-National Forces' Iraq Web site as of January, 2006 is still listed as “at large.†Of course, if he has not been captured, it is reasonable to assume he has not been interrogated.

    Tahir Jalil Habbush al Tikriti came to public attention in December, 2003 when the Telegraph UK reported Terrorist Behind September 11th Strike was Trained by Saddam.

    Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

    The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.

    In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

    Atta, of course, led the 9/11 attacks.

    Saddam to al Tikriti to Atta. A strong link from Iraq to 9/11. Add this to evidence that Saddam gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the 1993 World Trade Center bomb builder, and I'd say that you're looking at evidence that Saddam was linked to attacks on the World Trade Center not once, but twice.

    "Illegal war?"

    I think not.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:29 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    June 15, 2006

    John Murtha: Mortal Enemy of Military Justice

    Almost a month ago I ripped into ex-Marine John Murtha for unequivocally stating that a unit of Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" after an IED blast killed a fellow Marine in Haditha, Iraq.

    I stated:

    First off, it is unconscionable for any legislator to accuse U.S. military personnel of multiple counts of premeditated murder before an investigation into these charges is complete. Prosecutions must proceed at their own logical pace as evidence in the case dictates. Premature accusations by a public figure in such a case imposes an artificial timeline, endangering the accuracy and thoroughness of an investigation.

    At the same time, such heated rhetoric as charges of murder of "innocent civilians in cold blood" is prejudicial against the defendants, poisoning public opinion against them. This would be an explosive charge in a civilian court, but to make such charges against members of the U.S. Military when they are engaged in military operations in that country is absolutely fissionable.

    An attorney for one of the Haditha Marines apparently agrees, and states that if his client is charged, he will call Murtha as a witness:

    A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

    Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.
    Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

    "Unlawful command influence." Let that sink in. According to United States vs. Gore, No. 03-6003, 60 MJ 178 (and summarized here), unlawful command influence:

    • is recognized as the mortal enemy of military justice;
    • tends to deprive service members of their constitutional rights;
    • if directed against prospective defense witnesses, it transgresses the accused's right to have access to favorable evidence.

    John Murtha took the extraordinary step of accusing Marines of a war crime before the investigation was complete, and perhaps has compromised justice in this process entirely. Someone should ask Murtha if his political grandstanding was worth becoming the "mortal enemy of military justice" and jeopardizing the constitutional rights of these Marines. Someone should, but they aren't likely to get an answer. According the author of the Times article, Murtha's spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.

    Apparently too late, ex-Marine John Murtha has finally learned to shut up.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:32 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    June 13, 2006

    Bush in Baghdad

    While we were all looking at Karl Rove, President Bush decided to make an unannounced visit to Baghdad, no doubt as a show of support for the newly completed Iraqi government and a tough-talking Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's plans to increase security in Baghdad and throughout Iraq.

    From Fox News:

    President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq on Tuesday to meet newly named Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and discuss the next steps in the troubled, three-year-old war.

    It was a dramatic move by Bush, traveling to violence-rattled Baghdad less than a week after the death of terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a bombing attack. The president was expected to be in Baghdad a little more than five hours.

    You can say what you will about his successes and failures as a President, but George W. Bush certainly has courage. Not many Presidents—actually none that I know of, but I hardly claim empiracal knowledge—have made it a practice to visit our soldiers and our allies in an active war zone, and I can't recall a time when the technological capability for the enemy to strike against a President during a visit been greater.

    This article (and others, to be sure) tells a reeling al Qaeda where Bush is and when he will be leaving the airport, and the flight paths in and out of the airport are anything but secret. Frankly, I fear the possibility of an attempt to use MANPADS against Air Force One as it leaves Baghdad International. We know that insurgents have Russian-designed SA-16 man-portable surface to air missiles, and if DEBKAfilecan be believed, as many as a thousand Iranian-built SA-7s. I do not know how much of a threat to Air Force One small man-portable missiles would be, but a volley of these missiles fired simultaneously as the President's plane was ascending could be problematic to say the least.

    Those worries aside, the reasoning behind Bush's visit is sound. He is there to give a morale boost for an American military accused of murdering innocent civilians, and to show support for the Iraqi government that seems serious about cracking down on both insurgent and sectarian violence. His very presence all but assures success on both of these goals.

    More as this story develops...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:04 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    June 12, 2006

    Coming Soon: Bin Laden Never Existed

    I've long thought that the mental acuity of the average leftist was highly retarded by a wall of anti-Bush agi-prop (hence the tagline, "liberalism is a persistent vegetative state"), but even still, I was blown away by the blatant paranoia, open delusions, and thinly-veiled hatred of American soldiers manifested on liberal blog Talk Left, regarding the killing of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    Starting on Saturday and continuing again Sunday, Talk Left posters began working themselves into a lather over a claim made by an anonymous Iraqi to the Associated Press that U.S. soldiers beat al-Zarqawi to death after his safehouse was hit by two 500-pound bombs.

    The claim:

    The Iraqi, identified only as Mohammed, said he lives near the house where al-Zarqawi was killed. He said residents put a bearded man in an ambulance before U.S. forces arrived.

    "When the Americans arrived they took him out of the ambulance, they beat him on his stomach and wrapped his head with his dishdasha, then they stomped on his stomach and his chest until he died and blood came out of his nose," Mohammed said, without saying how he knew the man was dead.

    A dishdasha is a traditional Arab robe.

    A similar account in The Washington Post identified the man as Ahmed Mohammed.
    No other witnesses have come forward to corroborate the account. U.S. officials have only said al-Zarqawi mumbled and tried to roll off a stretcher before dying.

    Now, by even applying basic reasoning skills to Mohamed's claim, one would have to ask how "Mohammed" could see blood flow out of al-Zarqawi's nose with his robe wrapped around his head, but that was easily bypassed by this top liberal blog, which was quick to label al-Zarqawi's killing an act of terrorism by the American military:

    Killing Zarqawi and three women in the house with him was not an act of war. It was an act of retaliatory terrorism. By our government. And I don't want it to be in my name.

    So according to Jeralyn Merritt, founder of Talk Left, killing a major terrorist is itself an act of terrorism.

    The comment left me speechless over the weekend; I could not find a way to adequately explain the moral vacuousness and depraved indifference to reality needed to make such an incredibly stupid comment, and mean it.

    But several of Jeralyn's regulars were ready to go beyond her labeling of American soldiers as terrorists, and seemed to float the theory that al-Zarqawi never even really existed at all:

    The whole story is so unbelievable to begin with that the AP story only adds to the confusion.

    al-Zarqawi has been a psy/ops character made for the American audience since Powell pointed to him as proof aq[sic] was in Iraq.

    Why would the last chapter, his death, be any less fictional. With the US military controlling the narrative, anything is possible.

    Some where willing to grant the possibility that he existed, but weren't convinced he was a terrorist :

    The whole thing is bull. Whatever killed the man, it was not a 500-pound bomb. We know that's a lie, because the building was vaporized and the guy supposedly inside came out looking like he had been slapped by a high-school freshman. Then he died, with hardly a mark on him. Sure would like to see the autopsy report.

    It seems that a lot of people are willing to take the word of people who have been wrong about EVERYTHING SO FAR that he was a terrorist, and that his role was important.

    That was Saturday.

    Sunday's post was even more discombobulated, with Merritt and her supporters apparently convinced that a delay in releasing the autopsy until DNA confirmation was complete as evidence of some sort of a cover-up, with the "discovery" of a second (predictably) anonymous source all the proof they required that al-Zarqawi's death was the result of a brutal beating of an injured man by American soldiers.

    It's just heart-warming isn't it? Jeralyn and her followers find it far easier to believe that American soldiers are mindless thugs that would beat a wounded man on a stretcher to death, that believe he actually died as a result of two 500-lb. precision-guided bombs.

    Of course, that depends on the silly assumption of those of us outside the "reality-based community" have that al-Zarqawi actually existed. Talk Lefter's don't seem convinced.

    From Jade:

    All the national and international media reported for the last two years that Zarqawi had one leg. They even told when and how he lost it. The quote often was "how hard is it to find a one legged man in Iraq".

    Then we see a video of a two legged Zarqawi and a corpse of a two legged Zarqawi, how did that miracle of science happen?

    From Aaron, the "more than one al-Zarqawi" theory:

    While the DNA and the fingerprints may prove that this is indeed the terrorist we've come to know as Zarqawi, there does seem to be a lot of conflicting accounts, there may actually be a number of people using this moniker.

    [snip]

    The more you look at this nice neat little package which has been provided for us since day one, with the Jordanian government immediately stepping forward, and everyone revealing their intelligence sources, that's the moment you know to open your eyes wide, and listen very carefully. Far from being a coordinated attack it looks more and more like they just got lucky even with the help of Al Qaeda, and were able to call in a couple of planes which were on routine patrol. Beware of nice neat little packages when examining such counterintelligence scenarios.

    And last but not least, Furillo:

    I don't believe a word of what Gen. Casey Said.

    Zarqawi never existed. At least the terrorist one.

    It's all propoganda. Since when does a sullen Gen. Casey have to confirm what some already know is to use to press to brainwash and bombard us with dogma and story telling.

    You see folks? al-Zarqawi never existed. Nick Berg sawed off his own head. That half-hour propaganda video so beloved by CNN's Jamie McIntyre was likely filmed on the same set as the faked Apollo moon landings. It all fits… at least when you're having fits.

    Sadly, Jeralyn Merritt and her posters are not that atypical of the average "netroots progressive" that feel that our present U.S. government is the single greatest source of evil on this planet, and that terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden are just props created by President Bush "to further the neocon agenda."

    Can you imagine the looks they would have received in World War II?

    I wonder what would have happened to people of this ilk during World War II as they tried to tell other Americans of a conspiracy cooked up by FDR to make his friends in the military-industrial complex filthy rich by creating a pawn called Benito Mussolini. Mussolini of course didn't really exist, since they never did find conclusive enough proof that the body recovered after he was reported killed was really a fascist dictator at all.

    Back then, they'd be off to a rubber-padded room for electroshock treatments. Today, they run for office as Democrats.

    Merritt and her fellow partisans ask us to believe their current insanity is a self-evident truth. Even the release of the autopsy showing al-Zarqawi was killed by the blast overpressure of the bombs will not be enough to convince them.

    Based upon their easy dismissal of al-Zarqawi as a fictional character, one can only assume that from their enlightened perspective, Osama bin Laden is but a figment of our imagination as well.

    Silly, silly us.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:09 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    The Saddam Dossier

    Allow me to crow a bit this morning, as I'm extremely proud of and happy for Ray Robinson, who comments occasionally here at Confederate Yankee and helped me out immensely with his technical expertise in a series of posts debunking the "white phosphorus is a chemical weapon" myth of last November.

    Ray went on to establish his own blog in March, and now has a new column at FoxNews.com, called "The Saddam Dossier."

    What does Fox News plan to accomplish with this series?

    Was Saddam Hussein a security threat to the United States? Did the Iraqi dictator have connections to Al Qaeda or other terrorist ties? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction everyone believed were in his possession? Did Saddam move them? Did they ever exist?

    All of those questions have been dogging President George W. Bush and his administration since the start of the Iraq war. Politicians and respected U.S. military and intelligence officials have weighed in publicly on both sides of the debate, but until recently the general public has had little of the information necessary to make a fully informed decision on its own.

    But that is changing.

    The U.S. government seized thousands of classified Iraqi government papers when Saddam's regime was toppled, and Washington recently released a trove of these documents on the Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office Web site.

    The documents, many in Arabic and with no accompanying translation, provide multiple insights into events inside pre-war Iraq. The dossier, however, is huge and disorganized. Digging out its secrets is a laborious task — one that the U.S. government decided to leave to others.

    [snip]

    With a small cadre of independent translators to support his efforts, Robison will now translate and analyze scores of the unexplored trove of documents from Saddam's regime in a FOXNews.com exclusive series: The Saddam Dossier.

    In addition to translation, Robison will provide analysis based upon his work for the Iraq Survey Group and his military operations research experience. On occasion, he or a translator will remark in the translation itself for clarity, but will maintain the integrity of the document. All of their work will be linked online to the original Arabic texts, stored on the Foreign Military Studies Office Web site. Robison's analysis, however, is based on his own opinions.

    "It is my belief," Robison says, "that those who just want to know the truth will find new and shocking information in these documents and may even change their beliefs about the reasons for the war."

    The first installment of "The Saddam Dossier," Terror Links to Saddam's Inner Circle is online, and examines documents that connect Saddam's Iraq with the Taliban.

    The much vaunted liberal cry of "Bush Lied, People Died" has never been so threatened.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Thanks for Catching Up...

    CNN, today:

    Thousands of pounds of armor added to military Humvees, intended to protect U.S. troops, have made the vehicles more likely to roll over, killing and injuring soldiers in Iraq, a newspaper reported.

    "I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions.

    Since the start of the war, Congress and the Army have spent tens of millions of dollars on armor for the Humvee fleet in Iraq, the newspaper reported Sunday.

    That armor -- much of it installed on the M1114 Humvee built at the Armor Holdings Inc. plant north of Cincinnati, Ohio -- has shielded soldiers from harm.

    But serious accidents involving the M1114 have increased as the war has progressed, and the accidents were much more likely to be rollovers than those of other Humvee models, the newspaper reported.

    USA Today, March 2005:

    The Army is baffled by a recent spate of vehicle accidents in Iraq — many of them rollovers involving armored Humvees — that have claimed more than a dozen lives this year.

    One key concern: Soldiers lack the skills to handle the heavier Humvees and are losing control as they speed through ambush areas before insurgents detonate roadside bombs.

    "An individual feels that if he goes faster he can avoid that threat," says Lt. Col. Michael Tarutani, an Army official tracking the accidents. "But now he's exceeded, first, maybe his capabilities, and then maybe the speed for those conditions."

    In the past four full months, the numbers of serious vehicle accidents and fatalities in Iraq have more than doubled from the previous four months, records provided by the Army show. In the first 10 weeks of this year, 14 soldiers were killed in accidents involving Humvees or trucks. All but one died in rollovers. If that rate continues, the number of soldiers killed in such accidents this year would be almost double the 39 soldiers killed in 2004. Detailed records involving Marines were not available.

    Perhaps recycling a year-old article is "news" for CNN, but their story is well-known to anyone who has been following this war... or any other.

    Just as with the human body armor that some have been pushing, there is a significant trade-off, because added armor decreases mobility and flexibility. More armor does not always mean more survivability, as the heavier armor slows soldiers down and puts them in the enemy's kill zone longer. Firepower almost always ends up defeating a slowed, moderately-armored enemy.

    It's a formula that has held for hundreds of years, at least since the Battle of Crécy in 1346.

    I'm glad CNN is finally catching up.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    June 11, 2006

    Memorium

    A soldier remembered at Blue Crab Boulevard.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    My Lai, or My Lie?

    Perhaps this should not be surprising, but Marine Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich gives a version of events exactly opposite of those described by "cold-blooded" Congressman John Murtha and the Sunni residents of Haditha in a story by Josh White in the Washington Post:

    Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

    [snip]

    Wuterich's version contradicts that of the Iraqis, who described a massacre of men, women and children after a bomb killed a Marine. Haditha residents have said that innocent civilians were executed, that some begged for their lives before being shot and that children were killed indiscriminately.

    Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich's account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients.

    Other comments in the Post article also seem to contradict claims of a cover-up levied by some.

    I will not comment at this time to say which version of events is correct, but I'll note that Dan Riehl captured last week the various inconsistencies in the media-reported statements of Haditha residents, which makes this appear to be anything other than a cut-and-dried case as the media so eagerly reported it at first. I'll also note that radio traffic and reputed surveillance video from drone aircraft in the area can provide nearly irrefutable evidence supportingor disproving the facts as presented by some in this case. As Rick Moran notes at Right Wing Nut House:

    One side or the other is lying in spectacular fashion.

    And not just little inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony that one would expect in a war zone either. There are extremely disturbing indications that press reports detailing eyewitness accounts have failed to reconcile what Iraqis in Haditha were telling them with other known facts that were either conveniently left out or ignored altogether. There are also clear and unambiguous cases where Iraqi eyewitnesses have changed their stories 2, 3, and even more times.

    It will be very interesting to see which side is lying, and what the repercussions of that lying will be.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:42 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

    June 09, 2006

    Zarqawi Strike Aftermath

    AllahPundit digs this up from the Times of London:

    Al-Zarqawi's second wife Israa, in her late teens, and their 18-month-old baby, Abdul Rahman, died in the strike, Jordanian officials told The Times. Israa was the daughter of Yassin Jarrad, a Palestinian Islamic militant, who is blamed for the killing in 2004 of Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, the Iraqi Shia leader.

    Officials also said that Jordan would not allow the body of al-Zarqawi to be buried in his native country.

    I guess I should feel sorrow that Zarqawi's wife and child died, but I can't seem to find my sympathy right now. Israa is the daughter and wife of terrorists, and the world is diminished by her loss no more than it was when Eva Braun died, and perhaps less.

    Abdul Rahman, some are sure to note, was only an 18-month old infant, and it is true that he has done nothing wrong. He was however, the son and grandson of terrorists, and odds were that he would have grown into the "family business." If Uday and Qusay Hussein are any indication, he could have grown up to be even more of a sociopath than his father.

    But the violent termination of the al-Zarqawi bloodline isn't the only news of note in this Times article. The move to center stage of Zarqawi's suspected successor shoots holes in one of the most firmly held liberal lies about the war, that Iraq had no ties with al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion:

    ...al-Zarqawi's likely successor was an Egyptian national, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, whom the radical leader first met in 2001 at a terrorism training camp in Afghanistan. Al-Masri, who has a $50,000 (£27,000) price on his head, is believed have come to Baghdad in 2002 on a mission to set up al-Qaeda's first cell in Iraq.

    al-Masri was setting up al Qaeda cells in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion?

    So much for the liberal lie that there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion (well except for Abu Nidal. And Abu Abbas. And Abdul Rahman Yasin. And—oh, you get the point)

    Look for this "fact" to be hammered again and again as long as al-Masri remains alive.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:03 PM | Comments (45) | TrackBack

    Loose Lips

    After reading this post at the Corner (h/t Instapundit)and just a few minutes of internal deliberation, I decided that we need to find the man in this article and make an example of him to others:

    The Americans had gotten close before, but Mr. Zarqawi had always managed to get away. He was an elusive and wary figure who knew well how much the Americans relied on high technology to track down suspects: he and his men refrained from using cellphones, knowing how easily they could be tracked. Instead, American officials said, they relied on handheld satellite phones, manufactured by a company called Thuraya, to communicate with one another. The Thurayas were more difficult to track.

    Indeed, what the Americans had always lacked was someone from inside Mr. Zarqawi's network, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who would betray him — someone close enough and trusted enough to show the Americans where he was.

    According to a Pentagon official, the Americans finally got one. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified, said that an Iraqi informant inside Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia provided the critical piece of intelligence about Mr. Rahman's meeting with Mr. Zarqawi. The source's identity was not clear — nor was it clear how that source was able to pinpoint Mr. Zarqawi's location without getting killed himself.

    "We have a guy on the inside who led us directly to Zarqawi," the official said.

    This man should be hunted down ruthlessly, exposed, and imprisoned, or if allowed by law, executed as a warning to others. I'm talking, of course, about the “Pentagon official†who “spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified.â€

    Once again, the Pentagon leaked classified National Security information to the New York Times. Once again, the Times published this information with reckless disregard for the lives it puts in danger.

    We had an asset inside al Qaeda, one that helped us find and kill al-Zarqawi and seven of his top lieutenants. This same asset could have presumably stayed hidden and provided further intelligence, helping roll up other senior terrorist leaders in al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, dismantling their network from the inside. Perhaps he or she could have shortened the war to some extent, and in doing so, could have saved the lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, or more likely, save the lives of the Iraqi soldiers, police, and civilians who have been the focus of the brunt of al Qaeda's attacks.

    Instead, the Pentagon leaks continue, and this asset was compromised within one day of al-Zarqawi's end.

    Evil men who could have been compromised will continue to haunt this earth. The blood of good men—and women, and children—will continue to soak Iraqi soil. All because of a simple betrayal that this anonymous Pentagon official no doubt sees as nothing, or almost nothing; a simple favor for a journalist.

    But this “favor†can cost lives in a war far from over, and this “favor†is a form of treason, a form of espionage, and a form of sabotage, one that should be exposed and prosecuted with ruthless aggression.

    When people talk in war, people die. It's time to root out those that talk, and put them where they belong.


    6/11/06 Update: It's like Chris Muir can read my mind...

    June 08, 2006

    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Is...



    Dead. Dead. Dead.

    Update:Perhaps not too surprisingly, some Democrats are taking this as an opportunity to retreat, and Texas Rainmaker notes that the hive--well, mind isn't quite the right word--at the Democratic Underground is already in overdrive.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:12 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

    Veracity of Haditha Witnesses is Questionable

    I'm starting to understand why the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has been working so long to develop physical evidence and forensics to base their Haditha investigation on.

    Dan Riehl notes in comparisons of "witness" interviews in various media outlets that few if any of the Haditha witnesses are credible. One of the witnesses even admits to knowing that an IED blast was imminent.

    This information would in no way make it acceptable for U.S. Marines to shoot civilians (in Haditha or anywhere else) without just cause, but it does make this incident far more complex than many initially thought.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    June 07, 2006

    Young Americans

    Raw.

    That one word sums up what I've seen in the trailer of Pat Dollard's Young Americans (link on this page definitely NSFW), a documentary shot over seven months in places like Fallujah and Ramadi in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq with U.S. Marines.

    Dollard was injured in an IED attack on his Humvee on February 18.


    The HMMWV Dollard was in when it was destroyed by an IED in Ramadi, Iraq.

    Unlike others reporting events in Iraq who were injured by IEDs, a Google News search reveals just one only article about Patrick Dollard in Iraq. I guess if you aren't reporting the right stories you don't deserve much of a mention.

    The trailer I viewed for Young Americans is, if anything, excruciatingly raw, often vulgar, but almost certainly real footage of how frontline Marines act after the networks retire back to the Green Zone.


    Private Zachary Kother (left), Pat Dollard (center), Lance Corporal Eric Cybulski (right). survived the IED attack that killed Lt. Almar Fitzgerald and Corporal Matthew Conley.

    Dollard himself is something of a controversial figure, a former Hollywood agent and producer (read more here) that looks like a cross between Anthony Perkins and R. Lee Ermey who generates strong opinions from those who know him.

    All the footage taken in Dollard's seven months in Iraq in Ramadi, Fallujah and other part of the "Triangle of Death" were shot by Dollard himself or the Marines he was with, and the 600 hours of high-def footage is being edited into a 15-20 hour ultra-reality series for cable.

    Dollard's "Young Americans" trailer isn't pretty, isn't politically correct, and isn't going to be liked by many people.

    In short, it's war.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:26 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    Other Than Honorable

    Today, quite a few news outlets and blogs are discussing the case of Army 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada, an officer in the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division based in Fort Lewis, Washington, who has stated the intention to refuse deployment to Iraq with the rest of his unit this month. His stated reason?

    "I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."

    If Watada follows through with his stated intentions, he will likely be the first military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq. Further in the article, Watada's father explains his son's reasoning:

    His father — Robert Watada, a retired Hawaii state official — was opposed to the war in Vietnam, and was able to do alternative service in the Peace Corps in Peru.

    And Robert Watada said he laid out the "pros and cons" of military service as his son considered joining the service in the spring of 2003 as the invasion of Iraq was launched.

    "He knew very well of my decision not to go to Vietnam, and he had to make his own decision to join the Army," Robert Watada said. "It was very noble. He felt like he wanted to do his part for his country."

    After the younger Watada enlisted, he was sent to officer-training school in Georgia. Watada said he supported the war at that time because he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

    "I had my doubts," he said. "But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won't betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt." Over the past year, his feeling changed as he read up on the war and became convinced that there was "intentional manipulation of intelligence" by the Bush administration.

    In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.

    So Watada's basic argument is this: he joined the U.S. Army several months after the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, because he believed that Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). For reasons not clearly stated, Watada then determined that in his mind, "that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," and that he didn't have to deploy in what he regarded as an "illegal" and "immoral" war.

    Watada's stance has garnered the support of many on the far left, presumably from the very same web sites and blogs where he "read up on the war" and became convinced that "there was 'intentional manipulation of intelligence' by the Bush administration."

    I might have some sympathy for Lt. Watada's position if he had formally stated his opposition to the war to his superiors in his nearly three years of continuous military service until this point. Instead, he withheld these sentiments until his deployment orders were issued. Watada's newly-pronounced idealism reeks of an attempt to cover for other mortal flaws in his own character, shows a profound lack of loyalty to his men, and betrays an absence of any true and binding morality.

    Soldiers do not get to pick and choose their wars, yet hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Guardsmen, and Reserves have cycled into an out of Iraqi in the past three years of war, and while many perhaps felt that this war was not one they would chose, they followed their lawful orders to deploy.

    They do not do this because they love combat, nor death, nor deprivation. They give up families, stability and even their lives, because of honor, duty and loyalty. They do this because of bonds between soldiers that civilians such as you or I will never truly understand.

    Ehren Watada has betrayed the men in his command. He has shown that his fear of dying, and flailing political sensibilities are stronger than is sense of duty and loyalty to his men, and be betrayed his oath and his commitment to this nation.

    Based upon the previous convinctions of other soldiers and sailors, Watada will likely be court-martialed and demoted, perhaps sentenced to prison, and when he is finally excreted from the military criminal justice system, it will be with with a Other-Than-Honorable (OTH) discharge, with which he will be able to continue to live out an other-than-honorable life.

    Update: Kim Priestap at Wizbang and Michelle Malkin have more.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:29 PM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

    June 06, 2006

    Breaking: LAW in Durham

    WRAL TV (no story link yet) in Raleigh is reporting that two light antitank weapons have been found by a contractor working at a home in Durham, NC. A weapons disposal team is on the way from Fort Bragg.

    More as the story develops.

    Blind Speculation: I'm going on a hunch that if a contractor found these in a home being renovated, they may be older rockets, perhaps 70s-era M72s... and they very well could be inert.

    Update: Via WRAL:

    Authorities said a contractor found two suspected rocket launchers under a Durham home early Tuesday evening.

    According to police, the contractor was doing work on a rental property on Midland Terrace around 6:30 p.m. when he discovered found two items that appeared to be lightweight anti-tank weapons in a crawl space under the house.

    Police evacuated residences in the immediate vicinity and blocked Midland Terrace between Faucette Avenue and Cheek Road. Durham, state and federal authorities responded to the scene after the discovery. Authorities said that a bomb squad from Fort Bragg is expected to arrive at the scene overnight to inspect and dispose of the device.

    According to authorities, no one was injured by the weapons. Police are trying to determine where the devices came from and how they ended up in that location.

    Google Maps shows us that the suspected anti-tank weapons are in one of these homes not too far from the I-85/U.S. 70 interchange between Floyd Drive and Aiken Avenue.

    Hopefully, members of the Duke University Lacrosse team were not among the renters.

    6:49 AM Update: WRAL states that Fort Bragg EOD has removed the devices and confirms that "two items originally believed to be two anti-tank weapons -- each measuring around two feet in length" are in fact inert.

    Their length and description all but confirms them as the disposable launcher tube-and-firing mechanism of the obsolete M72 LAW, which is 24.8 inches long (closed), or the reloadable M190 training variant of the same weapons system.

    I suspect that the tube assemblies were obtained as souvenirs, and I cannot immediately find any applicable firearms legislation that would indicate that the possession of such devices would be illegal, since they cannot readily be made into functional weapons.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    A Higher Standard

    Think of this CNN report the next time you here a member of the media or a hyperventilating liberal blogger intone that the military is whitewashing potential war crimes in Iraq:

    Seven Marines and a Navy medical corpsman are being held in the brig at California's Camp Pendleton, as commanders weigh possible charges against them in connection with the April 26 killing.

    [snip]

    An attorney representing the Navy medical corpsman, expressed concern that the media frenzy surrounding the case "has contributed to the current conditions my client is enduring at the Camp Pendleton Brig."

    "There are known terrorists incarcerated in military facilities around the world who enjoy more freedom and less restriction than he is experiencing," Jeremiah J. Sullivan said in a statement issued to the media.

    "During the one brief period per day he is allowed to utilize the recreational yard, my client remains shackled at the hands, waist, and ankles. Anytime he walks within the recreational yard he is escorted by at least one military prison guard who grasps onto his waist shackles at all times. The balance of his time is spent in solitary confinement," Sullivan said.

    If this account is accurate, then captured al Qaeda terrorists confined at Guantanamo Bay have more freedom that do U.S. military servicemen and women that have not yet been charged with a crime.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:28 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    June 05, 2006

    An Atrocity of Atrocities?

    It is but one of several atrocity cases that you will find the press laying at the feet of American Marines in Iraq, but the death of Hashim the Lame strikes me as among the most curious, and potentially the most troubling.

    Other incidents in Iraq have led to the deaths of Iraqi civilians at the hands of American Marines. Haditha was the incident that triggered the current media frenzy, and is under investigation as a possible war crime after 24 Iraqi civilians were killed by a Marine unit after an IED attack killed on of their own.

    In Ishaqi, a disputed number of women and children were killed after an air strike was called in on a house that was engaging Marines with intense small arms fire. The Marines were cleared after an investigation determined that men with ties to al Qaeda, including an al Qaeda financier, initiated the firefight. The financier was pulled alive from the rubble and is now in U.S. custody.

    In both of these incidents, the Marines were responding to immediate provocations. If Iraqi accounts of the death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad al-Zobaie are correct, this killing had no such immediate trigger.

    The official Marine account and the version of events told by Iraqi villagers could not be more different:

    Members of the Marine foot patrol under investigation in the case said they came upon Hashim digging a hole for a bomb near his home in the Sunni Arab village of about 30 homes near Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad. The Marines said they killed Hashim in a brief gun battle and that they found an AK-47 assault rifle and a shovel by his side.

    According to accounts given by Hashim's neighbors and members of his family, and apparently supported by photographs, the Marines went to Hashim's home, took the 52-year-old disabled Iraqi outside and shot him four times in the face. The assault rifle and shovel next to his body had been planted by the Marines, who had borrowed them from a villager, family members and other residents said.

    The family members of al-Zobaie have agreed to allow an exhumation and autopsy, which should she light onto which version of events is more accurate. I'm hoping that the Marine account is accurate for the simple reason that the alternative—that Marines singled out and premeditated the murder of a cripple for unknown reasons—is so difficult to contemplate.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    June 04, 2006

    The Silence of the Lambs

    If you visit the always useful memeorandum.com to see how the blogosphere is responding to the arrests of 17 terrorists in Canada, you'll notice something: not a single left-of-center blog of note will discuss it.

    Not yesterday afternoon.

    Not last night.

    Not this morning.

    Ace of Spades noticed this phenomenon last night, and writes:

    Not a word about it at has-been harridan Jane Hamsher's combination blog-slash-application for voluntary state psychiatric confinement.

    The Daily Kos mentions it as a single item in an open thread about three other news stories, the other three fairly trivial.

    Mostly Open Threads are opened. Later in the day, "Georgia" posts this:

    Open Thread

    by georgia10

    Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 05:03:58 PM PDT

    It's a slow news day...so what's going on in your corner of the world?

    Yes, very slow news day, Georgia. So what's going on? Well, in the state you either live in or share the name of, two Muslim extremists -- or, should I say, Terrorist-Americans -- are named as co-conspirators with the Toronto megabombers.

    So, no big whoop. Go back to sleep.

    Nada at former Democratic strategist (or something) Peter Daou's "The Grit" blog. He does have time to mention Haditha, of course.

    Nothing at Atrios, despite a higher post-to-open-thread ratio today.

    Nothing at Jesus' General... though he does think he's pretty funny for showing American kids at a gun range, with a caption saying "GOOD," and Palestinian kids parading with guns, with a caption saying "BAD." Apparently it is lost on him that the American kids shoot at targets, whereas the Palestinian kids (who are younger) shoot at human beings.

    Oh, and blow themselves up in pizzarias.

    Nothing on Andrew Sullivan. He talks about -- yes, wait for it! -- Haditha and the other alleged "massacres," and also about how much spiritual support disco-pop-synth band Pet Shop Boys have provided him.

    Otherwise-- radio silence.



    IS ANY LEFT WING BLOGGER COMMENTING ON THIS STORY AT ALL?

    Or is it too dangerous to alienate readers by presenting discomfiting facts?

    Why, one would almost imagine that a victory in the War on Terror is unwelcome news to them. It's almos as if it's... bad news for them or something.

    One could almost venture to postulate, even, that their political and personal interests are precisely aligned with the terrorists'.

    Almost.


    The Man That Liberals Hate Most lays on the snark:

    Somehow, I have a feeling someone's civil rights were violated during all this “investigating†and “probing.†And if that's the case, well, then the terrorists will have already won.

    Although to be sure, lots of buildings and public transit venues in a number of countries remain intact as a result—and thousands of innocent civilians were probably spared. Still, small consolation indeed if it turns out some “spy agency†somewhere plucked a conversation out of (cyber)space and used it to zero in on these guys.

    Keep an eye on Glenn Greenwald's site for updates and analysis on how, during these overlapping probes, the Constitution was shredded.

    Yes, the "true patriots" are silent as the grave on this subject. This "unpleasantness" reminds them we are at war, which tends to destroy the wall of illusion they've been laboring to build since 9/11/01 that we are isolated and safe.

    I'm sure they'll snap back later today. They can't let reality intrude over fantasy for too long, you know.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:23 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    June 03, 2006

    Close to Home: Terror Sweep in Canada

    Via CNN:

    Canadian police on Saturday said they have prevented a major al Qaeda-inspired terror plot to attack targets in southern Ontario.

    Twelve adults and five young people were arrested, authorities said.

    "This group took steps to acquire three tons of ammonium nitrate and other components necessary to create explosive devices," said Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell in a statement.

    "To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."

    The detained suspects are all men, Canadian residents "from a variety of backgrounds" and followers of a "dangerous ideology inspired by al Qaeda," said Luc Portelance, assistant director of operations for Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in a news conference.

    The targets were all in Toronto, CNN's Jeanne Meserve reported at least one source as telling her.

    The charges include: participating in terrorist group activity, including training and recruitment; the provision of property for terrorist purposes; and the "commission of indictable offenses, including firearms and explosives in association with a terrorist group."

    What authorities are not saying—and will almost certainly not confirm—is the distinct possibility that this plot was uncovered via the NSA foreign intelligence surveillance program that the NY Times tried to label a “domestic spying†program. As most international communications into North America filter through U.S. switching equipment, it seems logical that if international communications were involved, the NSA would be the lead agency handing off information their counterparts in Canadian border police and intelligence agencies.

    CNN also suggests—but doesn't support—is that this raid could be tied to the London terror raid conducted Friday that foiled a suspected chemical weapons plot.

    Update: Via Stop the ACLU, it appears that internet monitoring was indeed responsible for helping break the al Qaeda cell:


    The investigation began back in 2004, when CSIS was monitoring Internet sites and tracing the paths of Canadians believed to have ties to international terrorist organizations. Local youths espousing fundamentalist views drew special attention, sources say.

    [snip]

    Four months after authorities began to fear that Canada might have its own homegrown terrorist cell, two Americans entered the picture.

    Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen of Bangladeshi descent who had attended high school in Ontario, and Syed Haris Ahmed, 21, a student at Georgia Tech, boarded a Greyhound bus in Atlanta on March 6, 2005, and travelled to Toronto to meet "like-minded Islamic extremists," a U.S. court document alleges.

    The NSA program, as repeated described, tracked targeted communications between terror suspects in the United States, and other countries... like Canada.

    I think we have a winner.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:02 AM | Comments (59) | TrackBack

    June 02, 2006

    Live From Kabul

    Blogger Bill Roggio is in Kabul, Afghanistan, and has a podcast up at Pajamas Media about the recent anti-American riots.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Eating the BBC Alive

    I was going to post on the BBC's recent attempt to place another "atrocity" at the feet of the American military, but Bruce Kesler at The Democracy Project gutted them so thoroughly that any attempt to add to his takedown it is wasted effort.

    Read the whole thing.

    It's nice we can truth the free world's media to be skeptical of our troops while blindly believing insurgent cameramen to be truthful, isn't it?

    Update: And just to further gut the BBC, ABC News is reporting that U.S. investigators who started an inquiry into this incident in March have called these allegations "unfounded," and that U.S. forces followed the rules of engagement, capturing the al Qaeda suspect that was the focus of the raid.

    I hope they have a recipe for crow.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    June 01, 2006

    When Specific Words Matter

    I do not think that Will Dunham at al-Reuters—or perhaps his military sources—quite understands the definition of the word "unprovolked."

    Mr. Dunham runs with this lede:

    A preliminary military inquiry found evidence that U.S. Marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians in an unprovoked attack in November, contradicting the troops' account, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

    While the killings of up to 24 Iraqi civilians that day may be wrong and even criminally so, it was not by any means "unprovoked."

    “Unprovolked†conjures up a certain image and a specific definition, namely :

    Not provoked or prompted: an unprovolked attack

    Clearly, the Marines in Haditha on November 19, 2005 were provoked into action by a very concrete, undisputed event: the detonation of an improvised explosive device by an unknown individual or individuals that killed one Marine and wounded two others. The Marine response to this attack seems to be both misdirected and clearly unacceptable in its result (we'll trust the military criminal justice system to determine the extent of criminal culpability), but if the brutal killing of you fellow Marine in a tremendous explosion isn't provoking, I don't know what is.


    I suspect that some will say that the difference between "unprovoked" and "misdirected" is no difference at all, but obviously, if they are willing to argue the point, then those very different words and what they represent to the future of the accused, does indeed matter.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:38 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

    May 31, 2006

    This, Too, Could Be Yours


    Source

    Now, does any one need to be reminded why mass immigration without assimilation a bad idea?

    Small gangs of youths pelted riot police with rocks and set cars and garbage bins ablaze late Tuesday in a second night of unrest in the Paris suburbs, raising fears of a return of the disturbances that inflamed 300 French towns and suburbs last fall.

    The violence of the last two nights -- in which youths attacked police cars, government buildings and riot police -- was sparked in part by mounting resentment toward the mayor of the northeastern Paris suburb of Montfermeil, who in recent weeks imposed a law prohibiting 15- to 18-year-olds from gathering in groups of more than three and requiring anyone under 16 to be accompanied by an adult on city streets after 8 p.m.

    The French government last fall promised to improve living conditions and job opportunities in suburbs heavily populated by immigrant families and where unemployment is rampant, but little has been done and the government's main initiative -- a youth jobs bill -- ended with this spring's politically disastrous student demonstrations.

    This is Paris, France, but it could just as easily be Paris, Texas.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again: importing poverty is never going to solve a nation's problems and instead, can only add to them.

    If you think nearly unchecked immigration is a problem now, wait until 40 million more arrive with little or no education, little or no job skills, and little or no English language skills.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:02 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    John Murtha: My Lai-r

    Perhaps it is simply my perception, but it seems to me that the intent of some to turn the killing of approximately 24 Iraqi civilians by Marines into this war's My Lai has failed thus far, and I somewhat doubt that meme will have chance of growing beyond the far left. The differences between the incidents far outweigh the similarities.

    For those of you unfamiliar with it, My Lai (note: the following is summarized from the Wikipedia entry on the subject) was a massacre of hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians by a Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division of the U. S. Army. Ostensibly, U.S. intelligence pinpointed the 48th Battalion of the Vietcong as hiding in Son My village, specifically in areas labeled My Lai 1-4. Lt. William Calley led a platoon into the area, and after finding no Vietcong, they killed between 347-504 civilians, some after being raped or tortured. The date was March 16, 1968.

    A cover-up of the incident was almost immediate, with the 11th Light Infantry Brigade's Commanding Officer, Colonel Oran Henderson running a cursory investigation that found just 22 civilians had died inadvertently while 128 Vietcong had been killed. Letters from several soldiers finally got the attention of Congress approximately a year later. They story broke publicly in November of 1969, and some reports indicate that thoughts of a cover-up (read the Wikipedia entry, take it for what it is worth) ran through many levels of the Army Officer Corps, all the way to the National Security Advisor and the Secretary of Defense.

    The incident is major note not only for the brutality and scale of the massacre, but for the light punishment given to those who perpetrated it (Calley served just 3 1/2 years years as the only conviction), and the huge shift in perception it brought, bolstering and providing fuel for the anti-war movement.

    But Haditha is not My Lai.

    I will tread very carefully in discussing the Haditha incident as it is still under investigation, but we do know certain things that are beyond doubt. We know that on November 19, 2005, one Marine was killed and two more were injured when an IED went off near a convoy from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines. We know that immediately after the event other Marines in the convoy dismounted and approximately 24 Iraqis were killed, some of them women and children. Everything else at this point is speculation.

    My Lai started without any recognizable provocation, and seems to be a blatant small-scale genocide. Haditha had a real and quantifiable trigger; the death of one Marine and the injury of two others by an IED detonation. Right or wrong, Haitha had a discernible triggering event.

    Unlike My Lai, there is no evidence of an attempt at a high level cover-up whatsoever with Haditha. Three officers—two Captains and a Lt. Colonel have been relieved of command, and at least two separate and apparently quite thorough investigations by the NCIS were launched months ago.

    The Haditha investigations will also be far more thorough and accurate than the investigations at My Lai for several reasons.

    First, the investigation in the Haditha has same-day evidence collection, including digital photos obtained by another Marine unit that responded to the area. It may also have some real-time evidence collected, as there is some indication that drone surveillance aircraft and radio communications may have also captured details of the events of that day. Forensic science has also progressed phenomenally in the near 40 years since My Lai, and the likelihood of investigations obtaining a far more detailed forensic record of events is all but assured. It seems most of these events happened indoors where evidence such as bullet holes in walls, fragmentation patterns, and firing lanes are precisely known.

    No, Haditha is not like My Lai, but that has not stopped some from trying to inflate it to that level.

    Chief among them is ex-Marine and current Democratic congressman John Murtha, who has alleged that the Haditha incident was cold-blooded murder, that this incident is indicative of the policy of our troops and now, that the incident is being covered up by the highest authority in the Marine Corps, citing Marine Corps General and Joint Chief of Staff Peter Pace by position, if not by name.

    All of these charges by Murtha are unproven hyperbole, set forth with but one goal in mind: "redeploying" all American soldiers out of Iraq. The Haditha incident may be Murtha's last, best hope of purposefully losing a war he first began trying to undermine in 2004. John Murtha is willfully attempting to smear the entire Marine Corps chain of command (and by the extension, the Corps itself) down the river to advance his political agenda.

    Always Faithful?

    Hardly.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:31 AM | Comments (76) | TrackBack

    May 30, 2006

    Letter From a Wannabe God

    "Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong"
    --Dire Straits, "Industrial Disease"

    This morning I got email from Jesus himself. Actually, I got email from a liberal blogger who styles himself "Gen. JC Christian, patriot." The email, addressed to others and myself, ran as follows:

    Hugh Hewitt, Hugh Hewitt Show
    Bob Owens, Confederate Yankee
    Gary Gross, California Conservative
    Biggus Dickus, Blue Crab Boulevard

    Dear Mr. Hewitt, Mr Owens, Mr. Gross, and Mr. Dickus,

    About a week and a half ago, each of you published scathing posts attacking Rep. John Murtha for his comments about war crimes at Al Haditha, Iraq. Mr Owens called for Murtha's censure; Mr. Dickus demanded his resignation; Mr. Gross wants him frog marched off the Hill.

    What seemed to enrage you the most about Murtha's comments was that he had made them before it has been established by the Marine Corps that a crime had been committed. I couldn't agree more. I mean we aren't talking about a goatherd at Gitmo here, we can't jump to any conclusions until Our Leader and Sean Hannity tell us it's acceptable to do so.

    Maybe it wasn't a war crime at all. The final report might show that the victims were all terrorists. Who knows? Perhaps the 6 year old was shouldering an RPG and the 3 and 4 year olds were manning a .50 cal machine gun. We won't know until the final report is issued.

    But as much grief as you gave Murtha for his remarks, you haven't written a word about remarks attributed to Rep. John Kline:

    "I was saddened, surprised and outraged that this could happen," Kline said. He said he thought the incident would be regarded as "a horrific aberration" for the Marines.
    Why have you been silent? Isn't he jumping to the same conclusion as Murtha? An official report hasn't been issued. He can't be certain that a war crime was committed, can he.

    Worse yet, like Murtha, Kline is a retired Marine. Why is it that these ex-leathernecks seem to be the angriest about what happened at Haditha? Does leaving the Marine Corps cause you to hate America? Maybe you should look into that.

    Oh wait. I just realized that Kline is a Republican and one of Our Leader's most loyal servants.

    Never mind.

    Heterosexually yours,

    Gen. JC Christian, patriot

    While the others will presumably ignore this email (not the least reason of which is that he didn't bother to send it to everyone he addressed) and with good reason, I personally have no problem at all answering "General Christian."

    It is a fair question to ask why I chose to call for Murtha's censure, while ignoring Kline's comments thus far, though I thought the answer would be quite obvious to any reasonable person, much less our Lord and Savior.

    Kline, himself a former Marine, stated in the Washington Post (side note to General Christian: a link to a quote is good email etiquette, which is something even a false deity should know):

    "I was saddened, surprised and outraged that this could happen," Kline said. He said he thought the incident would be regarded as "a horrific aberration" for the Marines.

    He was further quoted three days later in the NY Times, "This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them," adding "This is going to be an ugly story."

    Does anyone have a difficulty spotting the difference between Kline's comments about the deaths in Haditha, and these from Murtha?

    Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood†after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19.

    [snip]

    Murtha said combat stress prompted the Marines' alleged rampage.
    “It's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they're out in combat,†he said. “One man was killed with an [improvised explosive device] and after that they actually went into the houses and killed women and children.â€

    Kline notes the undisputed facts that the killing of 24 civilians was conducted by Marines, that this was going to be an "ugly story" and that in his opinion, such killing by Marines were "an aberration." At no point in his commentary did he attempt to assign motive, nor guilt, nor innocence. He merely commented on what most of us already knew from the Times and ABC News follow-up reports in mid-March.

    John Murtha, however, has apparently declared himself prosecutor, judge and jury in this case. He pointedly accuses the Marines of killing civilians "in cold blood," and even attempts to ascribe a motive and a mindset, more than six weeks before the report of the investigation is even ready for release.

    Perhaps in his omnipotence General JC Christian can look into the hearts of men and know what is in their souls, but John Murtha does not have that capability, nor do other mortal men.

    It is for that very reason we have a criminal justice system, so on this mortal plane we can attempt to determine (as best we can) guilt or innocence by collecting evidence of a crime, filing charges against the accused, holding a trial where evidence is shown by both sides, prosecution and defense, before finally rendering a verdict of guilt or innocence.

    I called for Murtha's censure because he attempted to short circuit the military criminal justice system, prejudging these Marines guilty without the benefit of due process, and potentially compromising the integrity of the criminal proceedings. I made no complaint against Kline, because Kline never even approached improperly interfering in this case.

    A deity, particularly an omnipotent one, would presumably know such things. But as well all know, "General JC Christian, patriot" isn't a deity, but merely another poor player as the Bard noted, strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage before he, too, will be heard from no more.

    I wish the good General all the best in his blogging endeavors, and hope that the real Jesus is as amused by his antics as I have been.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:28 AM | Comments (115) | TrackBack

    May 26, 2006

    Indefensible Acts

    When the story first broke in March that on November 19, 2005, a Marine unit in the Iraqi city of Haditha may have killed nearby civilians after an IED killed one Marine and injured two others, I made a simple statement.

    Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.

    They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.

    If a just-published New York Times article on the investigation is true, then the incident was far worse than we dared suspect:

    A military investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis last November is expected to find that a small number of marines in western Iraq carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians, Congressional, military and Pentagon officials said Thursday.

    Two lawyers involved in discussions about individual marines' defenses said they thought the investigation could result in charges of murder, a capital offense. That possibility and the emerging details of the killings have raised fears that the incident could be the gravest case involving misconduct by American ground forces in Iraq.

    [snip]

    Evidence indicates that the civilians were killed during a sustained sweep by a small group of marines that lasted three to five hours and included shootings of five men standing near a taxi at a checkpoint, and killings inside at least two homes that included women and children, officials said.

    That evidence, described by Congressional, Pentagon and military officials briefed on the inquiry, suggested to one Congressional official that the killings were "methodical in nature."

    Congressional and military officials say the Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry is focusing on the actions of a Marine Corps staff sergeant serving as squad leader at the time, but that Marine officials have told members of Congress that up to a dozen other marines in the unit are also under investigation. Officials briefed on the inquiry said that most of the bullets that killed the civilians were now thought to have been "fired by a couple of rifles," as one of them put it.

    I'm not sure how to address this. I'd braced myself for the worst from the very first reporting of this story, steeling myself to the possibility that U. S. Marines, distraught over the death of one of their own, went on an anguished, emotional rampage in the immediate wake of the event, lashing out in a blind rage against the first possible targets that crossed their paths. This, of course, would still be a crime, but one that could be understood, if not tolerated.

    But if sometimes truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, sometimes reality is worse than our darkest nightmares. If the Times article is correct, a staff sergeant led a squad on a methodical, multi-hour killing spree.

    Why was this allowed to occur? Why was this sergeant not relieved of his command, and this unit immediately forced to stand down by other Marines? This event could not have occurred in a vacuum, and other Marines watched these murders occur, presumably without making any serious attempts to intervene.

    I grew up on Guadalcanal Diary and the Sands of Iwo Jima, and have always had a fondness in my heart for the Marines that I saw from nearby MCAS Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune. The apparent fact that Marines stood by and let one or more of their brethren massacre civilians, and then apparently tried to cover up the crime (which will be the target of a separate investigation) are black stains on the long and storied honor of the Corps, and that sickens my heart.

    If the Times reporting of this incident is correct, there does seem to be the possibility of capital crimes. Let the investigation proceed, let the trial be fair and unambiguous, and let justice be swift.

    * * *

    Eight days ago, before the joint NCIS/Multi-National Forces investigation had been completed on the case, before so much as one charge had been filed, ex-Marine John Murtha made the extraordinarily inflammatory and provocative statement that the Marines in this horrific incident "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

    I said then and maintain now that:

    …it is unconscionable for any legislator to accuse U.S. military personnel of multiple counts of premeditated murder before an investigation into these charges is complete. Prosecutions must proceed at their own logical pace as evidence in the case dictates. Premature accusations by a public figure in such a case imposes an artificial timeline, endangering the accuracy and thoroughness of an investigation.

    At the same time, such heated rhetoric as charges of murder of "innocent civilians in cold blood" is prejudicial against the defendants, poisoning public opinion against them. This would be an explosive charge in a civilian court, but to make such charges against members of the U.S. Military when they are engaged in military operations in that country is absolutely fissionable.

    Even if these accusations are proven true—once charges are finally brought and duly prosecuted—Murtha's grandstanding is still a reprehensible act, trading upon horrible (alledged) murders for temporary political gain.

    Sickening souls on the far left are already gloating that Murtha's premature pronouncements may turn out to be accurate, without considering for a second that it was not his place to make those accusations. He could have endangered the investigation and prosecution of these apparent crimes. Of course, due process doesn't much matter to these folks. Making charges, whether they can be proven or supported, is part of their stock in trade.

    I find I am able to feel disgust for all the black hearts involved; those that could perpetrate such horrific acts, those that could cover it up, and those who would try to profit from it.

    May justice find them all.

    Note: It is important to remember that the investigation is still on-going and that the final NCIS report is not expected for another 30 days. No Marines have yet been officially charged.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM | Comments (48) | TrackBack

    May 24, 2006

    The Nerve of This Guy

    Would somebody have the decency to tell this man that he is losing the war?

    Iraqi troops will be able to handle security in all 18 of the country's provinces by the end of 2007 with additional training and equipment, the country's new prime minister said Wednesday.

    [snip]

    It is the second time in a week that al-Maliki has discussed a timeline for the handover of security responsibilities to Iraqi troops -- a development that President Bush has said would enable U.S. troops to leave.

    With more training and better equipment, "Our security forces will be capable of taking over the security portfolio in all Iraqi provinces within one year and a half,"...

    [snip]

    During a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Monday, al-Maliki said his government could take over security for 16 of Iraq's 18 provinces by the end of this year.

    Obviously, Prime Minister al-Maliki has not asked permission to win the war from "liberal hawk" John Murtha, who said Iraq was unwinnable. He has not heeded the common wisdom of the New York Times, that Iraq was, is, and always will be a quagmire.

    This Prime Minister Nouri Kamel al-Maliki ignores the pundits and the fatalists that long ago consigned his nation to the status of a lost cause.

    Just who does he think he is to win?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:40 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

    May 22, 2006

    Is Hezbollah's Preemptive Surrender a Tip-Off?

    It looks liked Iran's hoped for "second front" in the event of U.S. military intervention into the future of its nuclear program development has just signaled a preemptive surrender:

    Lebanon's Hizbollah, a close ally of Iran, would not jump to Tehran's defence if the U.S. launched a strike against its nuclear programme but would step in if the conflict spread to Lebanon, its deputy chief said on Monday.

    Sheikh Naim Kassem told Reuters that the guerrilla group, which was established by Iran in the early 1980s but has since grown into a political party with 14 seats in parliament, had no plans to get involved in regional battles.

    "Hizbollah is not a tool of Iran, it is a Lebanese project that implements the demands of Lebanese," Kassem said in an interview in the Hizbollah-controlled southern suburb of Beirut.

    "Iran is a big country with real capabilities and can defend itself if it is exposed to American danger."

    Kassem's message is more circumstantial evidence for those of us who feel that Iran is likely to be a nuclear provocateur if allowed to continue uranium enrichment unmolested. His statement of Hezbollah's military neutrality and defensive posture in the event of an Israel-Iran conflagration would seem to indicate that:

    1. Hezbollah has reason to believe that a conflict between Iran and Israel is a near term possibility.
    2. Hezbollah believes that the conflict will be of sufficient magnitude that a potentially debilitating counterstrike would pose a serious threat to their operations.

    But what magnitude or retaliation could be so sufficient as to threaten a decentralized organization such as Hezbollah? The final graph of the article seems to indicate the expected conflict could be a region killer:

    "If we assume the worst possible scenario, that Iran was completely cut off, Hizbollah would continue because it is based on faith. We are a political, ideological and jihadist party...," Kassem said. "This is a religion we believe in whether Iran is there or not."

    Sheikh Naim Kassem, friend of Iran, speaks of a worst possible scenario that envisions his ally no longer existing.

    Determing why he might feel this way, and why he might feel this way now is of the utmost importance.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:33 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    May 19, 2006

    Completing the Circle

    Update: Claims that religious minorities inside Iran would be forced to wear identifying colored badges are now being challenged and appear to be false.


    Source

    Something old is new again:

    Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims. "This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

    Au contraire, my good Rabbi. Iranians are not acting like Nazis. As Michael Rubin
    points out, they simply are acting more like Iranians:

    The Nazi practice of forcing Jews to wear a yellow star had its origins in what is now Iran and Iraq when a ninth century caliph forced his Jewish subjects to wear yellow patches. From time to time, subsequent rulers revived the practice. Shiite clerics long deemed any food touched by Jews to be unclean. While blood libel only took root in Iranian society after the sixteenth-century arrival of European ambassadors, as Iranian society wrestled with modernity, violent anti-Semitism grew. Pogroms wiped out the Jewish community in some towns and villages in Iranian Azerbaijan in the mid-nineteenth century, and serious pogroms also swept through Mashhad, a Shiite shrine city in northeastern Iran in which the current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was born and raised. It was also in Mashhad that, despite the oft-cited mantra that there is no compulsion in Islam, Shiite clerics forcibly converted the remaining Jews to Islam under threat of death.

    Hitler's SS learned much from Iran, as Rubin notes above. It is reasonable, based upon history, to assume that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is once again moving his country in the direction of another pogrom, another Holocaust, though one created not by sword and fire, but fission.

    As Jeff Goldstein noted yesterday, Ahmadinejad has taken steps that a pious member of his sect would before unleashing war, including the issuing of a da'wa:

    In last week's post, "An Islamic Declaration of War?", I (and a number of other bedwetters and paste-eaters) tried to divine (sorry) the intent behind Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush—a letter that Robert Spencer noted at the time was curiously like a da'waan Mohammedan mandate required before waging war against unbelievers.

    Today, we're again confronted with the prospects of a letter from Ahmadinejad, this one to be addressed to the Pope...

    Jeff then links to Hot Air's Bryan Preston, who reminds us:

    These letters are hardly unprecedented, as al-Reuters says. Their origins go all the way back to Mohammed, who often issued letters to the kings of lands he was about to attack to invite them to accept Islam before Mohammed would invade to convert them by the sword. Thus, the religion of peace spread far and wide. This, now second letter from the hand of Ahmadinejad is a da'wa—a call to Islam. It follows Mohammed's traditional letters. Implicit in such letters is the threat that if the recipient doesn't accept Islam voluntarily, he and his land will accept it by force. Or die resisting.

    In Crazy Mahmoud's mind, he has now written to the chief of the world's top secular superpower and is writing to the chief of the world's unbelieving (vis a vis Islam) religious superpower (there being no equivalent of the pope in Islam). He is inviting them both to accept Islam, both personally and on behalf of their nation and church. Unless I miss my guess, in the letter to Benedict he will be, in essence, calling upon the Catholic Church to accept Islam–or die.

    These letters are not well-wishes for the holidays or get-to-know-you cultural exchanges. They are threats. Mahmoud has something planned, and it would seem to me to be in the latter stages of finalization before it goes forward.

    While I must admit that I'd earlier missed the significance of the da'wa letters, their historical precedence cannot be ignored. Every note played by Ahmadinejad so far has been played before, if via a different instrument, and this time, the Iranian instrument of choice is all but certain to be a MIRV.

    Where would that lead?

    I wrote two weeks ago in "Recalling the Twelfth Imam:

    Recently, Iranian government officials went far enough to state that they could destroy Israel with nuclear weapons and absorb an expected Israeli nuclear counterstrike.

    Tens of millions of people throughout southwest Asia would be likely to die in such an exchange.

    [snip]

    Israel would be gone. The Palestinians would be gone. Iran would be gone. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would suffer millions of casualties from the blast and intense fallout from the Iranian strike, and the Israeli counterstrike would likely blanket most of the "–stans," as well as China and India with a plume of radioactive fallout, exposing close to a billion people both indirectly and directly to airborne fallout and food-borne consumption of the same for many years to come.

    As you may expect, a glowing Middle East wasteland would destroy the global energy market, collapsing economies around the world, including our own. No human on this planet would be untouched by the effects, which could take decades to recover from, if ever. It would also make Muslims hunted around the globe, setting the stage for a crusade the likes of which the world has never imagined. Islam, and what remains of 1 billion Muslims, would be targets for an entirely different kind of genocide born of fear.

    Wow.
    Yeah, "wow."

    Most of the punditry that has discussed the building nuclear crisis with Iran has discussed it in terms of asking when would we attack them, but as these da'wa letters indicate, it seems like it is Iran that is preparing to take the offensive. Considering that some think that Iran may already have nuclear weapons and that traces of uranium have been discovered in Iran that are close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads, this seems like it should be a contingency we should be preparing for.

    Indeed, it may very well be something we are planning for, as strategic planning contractors working for the Pentagon have already delivered presentations predicting an Iranian offensive.

    VII, Inc is one of these contractors with apparently deep ties in the Gulf Region. They compiled a 42-page presention in January titled "Iranian President-Islamic Eschatology Near Term Implications" which was presented to the U.S. military.

    Eschatology is defined in the presentation as "a part of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or the ultimate destiny of human kind, commonly phrased as the end of the world or end of the age." The document explored the religious psychology of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahcracy, as well as historical, political, economic, and military influences.

    VII saw just two possible scenarios as a result of their studies if Iran is left to function unimpeded, and both of those involve preemptive Iranian military strikes. One of these saw the possibility of the possible use of nuclear weapons in an Israeli response to a massive Iranian/Syrian rocket attack supported by Russia. This use of nuclear weapons was predicted well before recent developments that suggest the possibility that the Iranian nuclear program may be much more advanced than we first thought. It seems quite probable that Iran will use any nuclear weapons it may acquire or develop preemptively in an attack against Israel.

    Should we wait, and allow them to make that rash choice instead of taking that option away from them, we will have but little choice in response.

    Hitler's maniacal vision of how to unite the world under his power on the mid-twentieth century cost roughly 62 million lives before it was snuffed out in 1945. I'd prefer to see us act preemptively before things really do come full circle again.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:37 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

    The Elephant

    A thoughtful letter about "seeing the elephant" from a 101st Airborne Division soldier in Iraq to his blogger dad, at Blue Crab Boulevard.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 18, 2006

    Dishonorable John

    Ex-Marine John Murtha has taken the extraordinary step of accusing U.S. Marines of war crimes before a joint NCIS/Multi-National Forces investigation has been completed of an incident that occurred on November 19, 2005.

    On that date, a U.S. Marine convoy in Haditha, Iraq was hit by an IED, killing Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas and wounding two others. After the explosion, the Marines stormed nearby building and killed 15 people inside, three of them children.

    Army Times provides Murtha's exact charges:

    Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood†after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19.

    [snip]

    “It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine,†Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill.

    “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,†Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many†Iraqis killed than Time had reported.

    No official investigation report has been released by the Pentagon and a spokesman for Murtha was unable to add to the congressman's remarks.

    [snip]

    Murtha said combat stress prompted the Marines' alleged rampage.

    “It's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they're out in combat,†he said. “One man was killed with an [improvised explosive device] and after that they actually went into the houses and killed women and children.â€

    Let's take a step back for a second, and take a deep breath before we proceed.

    . . .

    First off, it is unconscionable for any legislator to accuse U.S. military personnel of multiple counts of premeditated murder before an investigation into these charges is complete. Prosecutions must proceed at their own logical pace as evidence in the case dictates. Premature accusations by a public figure in such a case imposes an artificial timeline, endangering the accuracy and thoroughness of an investigation.

    At the same time, such heated rhetoric as charges of murder of "innocent civilians in cold blood" is prejudicial against the defendants, poisoning public opinion against them. This would be an explosive charge in a civilian court, but to make such charges against members of the U.S. Military when they are engaged in military operations in that country is absolutely fissionable.

    To make such strong charges while our soldiers are in that combat theater of operations is to unnecessarily inflame Iraqi public opinion against our soldiers and place the lives of U.S. servicemen and women in danger of reprisal attacks based upon Murtha's claims, which to date, are unsupported.

    John Murtha makes claims that the civilians were killed by the Marines "in cold blood." This is an inflammatory charge that does not seem in the least possible by the undisputed events of the case.

    "In cold blood" is defined as "Deliberately, coldly, and dispassionately." It is also generally referred to in legal terms as premeditated murder whereby the accused is said to have planned out his homicide beforehand. In this event, an IED killed an American Marine and injured two others, at which point the surviving Marines stormed a nearby house and killed the occupants. Whether or not these deaths were justified or not is for the investigation to determine, but no credible individual could ever make the claim that these deaths were preordained.

    Murtha also makes a claim that I've heard nowhere else, where he alleges that "about twice as many" people died in that house that day, putting the number of civilians killed at or near 30. This claim is not supported by the original Time article, nor can I find support for anything approaching this number from any other sources. Murtha does not even even attempt to provide support for these extra charges, he simple ascribes roughly 30 premeditated murders to U.S. Marines as casually as if he was ordering a cappuccino.

    He does so before they have even been so much as charged with a crime. Murtha seeks to leave no doubt that this was anything other than a massacre of innocents. But is that actually what occurred?

    I first came across this story on March 20th of this year, and at the time I wrote:

    There is the possibility that the Marines did gun down innocent civilians as local Iraqis claim. But it is equally as possible that one or more people inside the house opened fire upon the Marines in an ambush after the IED went off. It has happened that way frequently, and that exact scenario left ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously wounded, when the IED attack that wounded them was followed by small arms fire from nearby buildings. The attack was broken when coalition forces counterattacked.

    Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.

    They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.

    "We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment."

    I had no idea just how accurate those words would prove to be. Congressman John Murtha has now gone so far as to accuse American Marines of cold-blooded murder before an investigation has been completed, and roughly doubled the number of dead without any support for his charges, with the sole apparent goal of inflaming outrage at the expense of our military's safety.

    It would seem appropriate that the United States House of Representatives should at the very least censure Congressman Murtha, who has gone so far out of his way to initiate such inflammatory and potentially dangerous rhetoric. He has dishonored his seat, the military criminal justice system, the Marine Corps and the United States of America.

    How a man can make such vicious, unsupported claims and still claim to love the Marine Corps and America is beyond my understanding.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (112) | TrackBack

    May 17, 2006

    FISA Judges Were In The Loop

    I can only imagine how the Left will try to spin the revelation that FISA judges were briefed about the NSA's controversial surveillance programs the entire time:

    Two judges on the secretive court that approves warrants for intelligence surveillance were told of the broad monitoring programs that have raised recent controversy, a Republican senator said Tuesday, connecting a court to knowledge of the collecting of millions of phone records for the first time.

    [snip]

    Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that at least two of the chief judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been informed since 2001 of White House-approved National Security Agency monitoring operations.

    "None raised any objections, as far as I know," said Hatch, a member of a special Intelligence Committee panel appointed to oversee the NSA's work.

    Hatch made the comment in answering a question in an interview about recent reports of the government compiling lists of Americans' phone calls. When pressed later, Hatch suggested he was also speaking broadly of the administration's terror-related monitoring.

    Asked if the judges somehow approved the operations, Hatch said, "That is not their position, but they were informed."

    If Hatch's comments are correct, it would seem to throw a considerably large wrench in the theories of those who are calling these programs an illegal conspiracy by the Bush Adminstration. It seems rather difficult to have a "conspiracy" if everyone was in on it.

    The White House Counsel cleared these programs. The National Security Agency's lawyers—who specialize in this area of law—cleared these programs. The programs were also cleared by not one, but two Attorneys General and a cadre of lawyers from the Justice Department, as well.

    We also know that members of the House and Senate from both parties were in the loop since 2001 and apparently not one ever batted and eyelash until the NY Times went public with information about the programs with information gathered from anonymous sources, including one who has been diagnosed with psychotic paranoia.

    If two FISA judges were also in the loop about these programs, it won't keep conspiracy theorists like Glenn Greenwald quiet, but it might just make their shrill cries a bit easier to ignore.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:14 AM | Comments (55) | TrackBack

    May 05, 2006

    Recalling the Twelfth Imam

    Unless you have been under a rock or in New York City public schools, you are probably aware that Iran has engaged in the development of a nuclear program.

    Iran has publicly stated that this is so that Iran can create nuclear power plants, a claim viewed with great suspicion by most of the world, as Iran sits upon vast petroleum reserves that will meets the nation's energy needs far into the future. Iran's parallel development of indigenous long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles and purchase of similar systems, as well as their claims of developing multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) that are used only to deliver nuclear warheads, show that Iran's uranium enrichment program has the ultimate goal of obtaining multiple nuclear weapons.

    Why do we care?
    Consider that Iran is a major state-sponsor of Islamic terrorism, and successive Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to exterminate Israel. Recently, Iranian government officials went far enough to state that they could destroy Israel with nuclear weapons and absorb an expected Israeli nuclear counterstrike.

    Tens of millions of people throughout southwest Asia would be likely to die in such an exchange.

    No, why do WE care?
    Other than being philosophically opposed to genocide and nuclear war on a scale never before imagined?

    Try:

    • years of nuclear fallout carried around the world on prevailing winds;
    • a nearly complete an long-term disruption in international oil supplies, resulting in major economic upheaval;
    • increasing the possibility of international conflicts over reduced oil supplies;
    • the dehumanization of all Muslims as a result of this mass genocide, perhaps leading to retaliatory strikes, mass internment, and deportation campaigns to eradicate the religion, particularly in western Europe and China.

    There is also the possibility that Iran may even provide nuclear weapons to a terrorist group, such as the Iranian-funded Hezbollah.

    Don't they know if they use nukes, they might get nuked back?
    "Might" doesn't come into the picture. They will be nuked back if they launch a first strike. Iran's population is concentrated very heavily (60%) in urban areas (Tehran: 7.1 M, Mashad: 2.8M, Tabriz: 1.5 M, Karaj: 1.4 M, Shiraz: 1.3, etc), and even a partial nuclear response by either Israel or the United States would cause Iran to cease to exist.

    It would be incredibly stupid for them to launch a nuclear attack, then.
    You're thinking like a westerner. In many Islamic countries, there is no separation of church and state. Church is state to varying degrees, with Islamic theology making laws and defining policy, again, to varying degrees. A sub-sect of Shia Islam rules the Islamic Republic of Iran, and this sect's eschatology believes that the near-term messianic return of the 12th Imam can be brought about by an apocalyptic event.

    What is more apocalyptic than a nuclear war?

    So they think that by getting nuked, they'll go to heaven?
    You might call it nuts, and I might agree, but good prosecutor would call it "motive."

    So when would they attack?
    Based upon their eschatology and public pronouncements thus far, one would be wise to assume that they would launch a nuclear attack just as soon as they had enough warheads to provide a good probability of success. Their definition of "success" is probably somewhere between annihilating Israel and making sure they get struck back with apocalyptic force in return. Two thermonuclear warheads would probably be enough to guarantee that result.

    That's nuts.
    You ain't just whistling "Dixie," Sparky, but that's what their top leaders believe.

    Well, they better not get nukes then.
    I thought you'd see it that way.

    So how do we do that?
    Remove their ability to enrich uranium.

    You're talking political and economic sanctions right?
    Yeah, they worked so well on Saddam, and we had them on Iraq for a dozen years before they almost completely fell apart. Some experts say Iran needs only about two years to build nuclear bombs. No expert thinks it will take longer than ten.

    Besides, explain to me what kind of threat economic sanctions are to leaders hoping to trigger a thermonuclear Armageddon.

    Uh, not much?
    Right you are.

    So that leaves...
    Destabilizing the Iranian government and hope it will be deposed by another Iranian group that are more earthly-focused and less enthralled with continuing down the path of uranium enrichment. At least that's the best option. The other option is the use of military force to terminate the Iranian nuclear program.

    So how do we start destabilizing the Iranian government?
    Supply dissident groups within Iran with monies and if necessary, munitions. Find ways to place pressure on the Iranian government, and exploit dissatisfaction within the Iranian population to engineer a coup.

    How long would that take?
    Years, if it ever worked at all.

    So our remaining options are?
    Doing nothing, and taking the huge risk that they won't do what they've been promising for years, out of a sense of preservation they don't have, or we take steps to reduce their nuclear program.

    You mean using military force?
    Unless you've got a better idea.

    But how can we fight Iran when we're already bogged down in Iraq? Won't we have to start a draft?
    While we can debate the whole question of whether we are "bogged down in Iraq" or not, the short answer is no, we won't need a draft, not in the least.

    Why not? I've read on several web sites we'd have to have a draft because we don't have enough soldiers in the military to invade Iran, unless we draft them first.
    You want the long answer, or the short answer?

    Uh, the short one?
    Good choice.

    Our current fight in Iraq and the kind of conflict we'd engage in with Iran are two completely different kinds of warfare. Our goal in Iraq was to depose a tyrant, uncover and dispose of WMDs, and then help install a democratic government.

    To do so, we had to defeat their military, topple their government, establish security and rebuild their government. Because we had this particular set of goals, we had to stage a land invasion using (over time) hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines to hold physical land in Iraq for long periods of time.

    A use of military force on Iran has a different set of goals entirely.

    What do you mean?
    In Iran, we are not seeking to control territory or (directly) overthrow a government. What we're doing is eliminating materials at approximately 400 fixed locations as our primary mission, while at the same time making sure we are in a position to fight a defensive war against a country that has a large but mostly one-dimensional conventional military (no real modern navy or air force to speak of), and a significant asymmetrical warfare capability via the use of Hezbollah terrorists and al Quds Special Forces units.

    In English, please?
    Sorry.

    We're going to bomb them. We don't need to invade, because we aren't trying to control land, just break things.

    Oh.
    We will be using a U.S. Air Force that isn't doing too much right now, as well as U.S Navy carrier airwings, submarine and ship-launched cruise missiles. The United States has the most advanced bombers and weapons in the world, including more conventional dumb and smart bombs, and exotic but still conventional ground-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs that would take out about 99% of Iran's nuclear sites. Israel has been building the IDF Air Force for this exact mission for over a decade, and I'd be quite surprised if they passed up the chance to use the aircraft and weapons systems they've acquired, especially when it is their very survival that is on the line. A handful of the most important sites, however, are buried so deeply that it might take a far more risky special forces insertion to damage the sites, or as the possibility has been mentioned before, a small thermonuclear ground-penetrating bomb.

    Whoa, cowboy. You're talking about nuking Iran? That's evil, unconscionable and un-American.
    What is evil, unconscionable and un-American is listening to Iran say time and again that they intend to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, and then acting that they won't carry out their threat. When we said "never again" after the Holocaust, I hope we meant that. An Iran-Israel nuclear war would wipe out close to 100 million people in hours.

    Israel would be gone. The Palestinians would be gone. Iran would be gone. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would suffer millions of casualties from the blast and intense fallout from the Iranian strike, and the Israeli counterstrike would likely blanket most of the 'stans, as well as China and India with a plume of radioactive fallout, exposing close to a billion people both indirectly and directly to fallout to airborne fallout and food-borne consumption of the same for many years to come.

    As you may expect, a glowing Middle East wasteland would destroy the global energy market, collapsing economies around the world, including our own. No human on this planet would be untouched by the effects, which could take decades to recover from, if ever. It would also make Muslims hunted around the globe, setting the stage for a crusade the likes of which the world has never imagined. Islam, and what remains of 1 billion Muslims, would be targets for an entirely different kind of genocide born of fear.

    Wow.
    Yeah, "wow."

    So what can we do to stop it from happening?
    Well we could start by hoping that the Iranian leadership would back away from this game of nuclear chicken, but considering their espoused hatred of Israel and open threats against it, along with their particular religious doctrine actually encouraging them towards Armageddon to call forth the 12th Imam as their Messiah, that possibility doesn't seem to be a rational one. They don't seem to want to stop on their own, and so we must make them.

    So you're saying we need to launch a preemptive regional war to stop a genocidal world war?
    I guess so, though it won't be a "regional war" as we've come to define them.

    What do you mean?
    We tend to picture regional wars as something like Korea, or Vietnam, or more recently, the Iraq War. We're thinking boots-on-the-ground, long-term and rather conventional ground campaigns. A war with Iran won't be like that.

    Part of a war with Iran with likely occur in a set region, with coalition air power taking the fight to Iran. Within a few days, perhaps several weeks, the 400 sites would be destroyed, severely damaging the Iranian nuclear program.

    The Iranian air force, low on spare parts with few operational modern aircraft and woefully under-trained by our standards, would offer little credible resistance. Iranian air-defense missile systems including the newly purchased Soviet TOR-1 faces the same training and equipment problems. Our anti-missile and anti-radar systems have a longer range than does their Iranian adversaries, allowing American HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles) armed aircraft to knock-out Iranian air defense units before the aircraft come into range. The Iranian Navy has been reduced to a fleet of small craft and aging ships that poses no real threat to U.S. warships, and should be able to be neutralized within days.

    The greatest potential conventional threat would be from Iran's Army, which on paper, is 350,000 men strong. The majority of those however, are conscripts, with little training or discipline. Some of the best units would be keep near the Iranian government to protect it from potential coups, and so the Iranian soldiers, while outnumbering their American counterparts, would come in with far less experience, far less capable commanders, and outmoded equipment and tactics.

    Factor in U.S air superiority and the Iranian practice of massing for attacks, and you have very inviting targets for American air support to operate against, choosing massed targets to destroy at will in a very lopsided, bug vs. windshield campaign between the world's most advanced and experienced combined arms military, against an enemy with World War II tactics and only slightly more advanced weapons systems.

    So the ground war in Iran/Iraq won't be pretty is what you are saying.
    Neither there, nor on border between Israel and Lebanon. Or at home.

    Say what?
    Iran will also fight a proxy war against Israel, and we can expect substantial rocket attacks and perhaps other terror attacks against northern Israel from Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and perhaps even in Syria. The IDF will be able to handle it, as will the Israeli people. They've had a bit of practice in their short history.

    No, the "at home" part.
    Iran promises that Hezbollah is more powerful and better organized to carry out attack on the United States than al Qaeda was. I wouldn't completely discount that possibility, but it is a risk we still must take.

    We simply can't take the chance of Iran going nuclear. Charles Krauthammer writes about the clearly impending Holocaust today in Never Again?.

    We can't let another 1938 pass unchallenged.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:39 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    May 04, 2006

    Blooper Troopers

    It appears the video released of al Qaeda action hero Musab al-Zarqawi left quite a bit on the cutting room floor, including footage edited out from his "Rambo" scene, where Zarqawi is seen in firing long bursts from a 5.56mm light machine gun used by the U.S. military.

    What the version of the video posted to the internet does not show says quite a lot. The unedited footage was captured near Youssifiyah, presumably by Task Force 145, shows that al Zarqawi is unable to clear a simple "stovepipe" jam from the M249 squad automatic weapon he uses. He requires the assistance of a follower, who with one deft motion of his hand, racked the bolt to clear the malfunction.

    Just seconds after Zarqawi fired dozens of rounds through the gun, he puts one of his men at extreme risk as he sweeps the machine gun's barrel around, momentarily pointing at the terrorist's chest without apparently activating the weapon's safety, or even taking his finger off the trigger. Shortly after that display of stupidity, another terrorist is shown grabbing the machine gun by the still-smoking barrel, burning his hand.

    The unintentionally comic elements of this footage does not, of course, minimize the lethal threat Zarqawi and his minions pose to the Iraqi people, but it does humanize him and diffuse a bit of the mythology surrounding him. He is not invincible, and at moments, he is all but helpless.

    Update: As I noted in a comment at Hot Air:

    If he [Zarqawi] is that unfamiliar with a common weapons malfunction, I wonder just how many combat actions he has actually participated in.

    Is Musab al-Zarqawi a paper tiger? We don't have enough data to answer that question, but with this film, we now have enough to bring it up.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:34 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    May 03, 2006

    Moussaoui Gets Life... Or Does He?

    Part of me thinks Rusty is probably right: if Zacarias Moussaoui gets life in prison for his part in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, how can we really justify putting to death any other terrorists we may capture? That is a rather disturbing question.

    At the same time, life is prison, even in what is likely to be solitary confinement, is perhaps more likely to result in his dying within this next decade. Jeffrey Dahmer, a cannibalistic serial killer of 17 men, was sentenced to 15 consecutive life sentences in February of 2002, but was murdered by another inmate in 2004. Child molester John Geoghan was also sentenced to life in 2002 and murdered by another inmate two years later.

    It is quite possible that Moussaoui will create enough hatred among the inmate population that his life sentence will end up being a very short stay.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:49 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    May 02, 2006

    Jeep Jihadi Charged

    Mohammed Taheri-Azar, the Iranian-American jihadi wannabe that tried to run down UNC-Chapel Hill students, was charged with nine counts of attempted murder. In addition:

    Mohammed Taheri-Azar, a UNC-Chapel Hill graduate, also was indicted on four counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and five counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.

    Taheri-Azar is accused of driving through the gathering spot, known as the Pit, on March 3, hitting nine people. He has said his actions were in retaliation for the deaths of Muslims throughout the world caused by the United States.

    I can only wonder if Chapel Hill (motto: "Left of Center, Right at Home") will raise monies for his defense fund. Some people have already thought about doing just that.

    Other Iranian-Americans (or more accurately, Iranian-North Americans) aren't among them.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:44 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    May 01, 2006

    "The Dumbest Man in the U.S. Senate"

    When I lived in New York, I used to drive home from my job in Westchester listening to Mark Levin, who often referred to Democratic Senator Joe Biden (Del.) as "the dumbest man in the U.S. Senate."

    It appears now that Biden's intelligence was overestimated:

    The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad.

    In an op-ed essay in Monday's edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., wrote that the idea "is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group ... room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests."

    The new Iraqi constitution allows for establishment of self-governing regions. But that was one of the reasons the Sunnis opposed the constitution and why they demanded and won an agreement to review it this year.

    Biden and co-writer Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledged the opposition, and said the Sunnis "have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20 percent (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues."

    Biden and Gelb also wrote that President Bush "must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest)."

    How are Biden and Gelb, two reputed political experts, so blatantly incompetent that they don't realize that a divided Iraq would create far more problems than what we see in the current situation?

    At the very least, partitioning off the nation along ethnic lines would encourage even more balkanization, and the attendant Sunni vs. Shia fighting would almost certainly intensify instead of abating. This of course would trigger an almost certain exodus of refugees of minority populations from one region into another. Choas is the best result we could hope for in such a fouled design.

    In addition, neither Biden nor Gelb touch upon the fact that such a division is likely to inflame an already tense situation between Turkey and the Kurdish-controlled areas in the west, and Iran and the Kurdish region in the east. Both nations fear that a partitioned Kurdish region would be the trigger for Turkish and Iranian Kurds to fight to bring their regions in to a larger Kurdistan based in Iraq. Turkey has already made clear that they view an independent Kurdistan as a threat, and they have already made cross-border attacks, as have the Iranians.

    Joseph Biden's idiotic attempt at ethnic segregation would expand Iraq's current sectarian violence into an almost certain regional conflict, encouraging both Turkey and Iran to invade. An invasion by either of these countries would almost certainly create situations where American military forces in the area might be forced into tense situations and possible open combat, either against our NATO ally which s bad enough, or potentially more seriously, a conflict that could easily flash into an ever-expanding, full-on conventional war with Iran.

    Such a conflict could see thousands of U.S casualties and perhaps hundreds of U.S dead, but that isn't the worst of it. Coalition forces, with unquestionable air superiority, would send tens of thousands of Iranian conscripts to their graves in such a conflict as well. Through sheer stupidity, Joe Biden would create a situation potentially more deadly than all of the battles of the Iraq and Afghan wars so far, combined.

    Is Joe Biden the dumbest man in the United States Senate as Levin contends?

    I'd hate to see who could top him.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:47 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    April 29, 2006

    Not Just a River in Egypt

    Wow, does he sound flustered:

    Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, began the 15-minute speech, titled "A Message to the People of Pakistan," with a reference to last month's three-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

    He says al Qaeda operatives in Iraq have perpetrated "800 martyrdom operations in three years, besides the sacrifices of the other mujahedeen, and this is what has broken the back of America in Iraq."

    He adds, "We praise Allah that three years after the Crusader invasion of Iraq, America, Britain and their allies have achieved nothing but losses, disaster and misfortunes."

    Al-Zawahiri appears to be encouraging the Pakistani people to follow the lead of the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, telling them to stand up against "the Zionist-Crusader assault" on Muslims and overthrow Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

    Al-Zawahiri calls Musharraf a "traitor" who placed the country's nuclear program under the supervision of the U.S. government.

    "I call on them to strive in earnest to topple this bribe-taking, treacherous criminal, and to back their brothers in the mujahedeen in Afghanistan with everything they've got," al-Zawahiri said.

    This is every bit as pathetic as Musab al-Zarqawi's ACME rocket demonstration earlier in the week. al-Zawahiri's cries amount to little more than a confession that al Qaeda has thrown everything it has against America, giving its best and well, err... well it wasn't enough was it?

    al Qaeda can keep fighting dying and killing for some time to come, but the corner has been turned, and they now recognize that without a major change in the game, they cannot hope to survive, much less win.

    Quite frankly, al-Zawahiri is starting to sound like someone else's dissembling spokesman from not to long ago. I guess that cold, dank cave air is finally getting to him...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    April 28, 2006

    Safe Haven?

    This is interesting, and will almost certainly be seized upon by some (perhaps many) as evidence that the United States is losing the fight against terrorism.

    Via CNN:

    The State Department's annual terrorism report finds that Iraq is becoming a safe haven for terrorists and has attracted a "foreign fighter pipeline" linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world, a senior State Department official involved in the preparation of the report told CNN.

    The report, to be released Friday, also says terrorist groups loosely associated with al Qaeda present the greatest threat to the United States and the world, even greater than al Qaeda itself.

    The official told CNN that, with al Qaeda's senior leadership scattered and on the run, autonomous cells inspired by al Qaeda's extremist ideology present a greater challenge because they are smaller, harder to detect and more difficult to counter.

    "These micro-actors are launching more attacks, and they are more local and more lethal," the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report had not been released, told CNN Thursday in an interview. This official cited last July's bombings in London by British Muslims with ties to Pakistan as an example of an increase in attacks by local terrorists with foreign ties.

    While the official described al Qaeda as "crippled and constrained without the strategic network" it once had, he said there are still indications al Qaeda is planning a spectacular terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

    "We have not been able to deliver the knockout punch to al Qaeda, and there is no doubt they are in the planning stages for something big," the official said.

    Upon reading this article, my first question was simply this: how does the State Department define a "safe haven?" Afghanistan under the Taliban was a safe haven when it provided more or less official cover for al Qaeda, and the same could presumably be said for present day Sudan, Syria, and Iran.

    But Iraq, where terrorists are actively hunted by domestic and foreign militaries, local police, and civilian tribesmen alike? Al Qaeda's "emir" of Samarra Hamid Al-Takhi might beg to differ with the description of Iraq as a safe haven, as would two of his men gunned down by Iraqi military forces today. I don't have numbers in front of me at this time, but I think it probably safe to assume that Iraq is probably among the least safe areas for terrorists right now.

    That groups affiliated with al Qaeda are more of a threat than al Qaeda itself should be self evident at this point, as most of al Qaeda's most experienced leaders and operatives are dead or in deep hiding.

    This was never more apparent than when top al Qaeda explosives expert Marwan Hadid al-Suri was killed last week acting as a low-level bagman distributing funds to the families of al Qaeda in Pakistan. A healthy terrorist organization would never put a top operative like al-Suri at risk is such an exposed position unless their trusted mid-level manpower was severely depleted. Thus, the "real" al Qaeda may not be dead, but after five years of being hunted down around the globe, they seem to be more a franchise name than an effective operational force.

    The key to destroying terrorism, in my opinion, is to reduce or eliminate entirely state sponsorship and several crimp international support, making it increasingly difficult to transfer men, material or knowledge across regions. If you are successful in do that, you isolate terrorists to a local and regional level. Once you've hampered their mobility, they are forced to carry out attacks more or less locally, in the same areas they draw their support from. As you well know, defecating where you eat is toxic, and for terrorists, increases their risk of being captured or killed significantly. Eventually, public support erodes and such organizations end up gutted and minimalized.

    Thus, while these micro-actors are indeed initially more deadly, forcing terror to retreat from a global to a micro-level is a significant improvement in the overall war against terrorism, as it reduces the overall lifecycle of terror organizations. We simply need to make sure we are making state sponsorship of terrorism a too expensive proposition in terms of capital (both political and monetary) at the same time, at which point the war against the tactic of large-scale terrorism may very well be won. The White House has taken steps in the past few days to do just that, clamping down on monetary support with the application of Executive orders against Sudan and Syria in the past days alone, placing significant pressures upon their unstable regimes.

    Soon, would-be nuclear state Iran may be among the last of the state sponsors of terrorism, and if they continue down their ill-advised and badly miscalculated gambit for nuclear weapons, they may find themselves in a conflict from which their terror sponsoring regime would not be allowed to emerge intact.

    The war on terror is far from over, but it seems from my perspective that the major players are choosing their ground for what may well be the final war against state sponsored terrorism of this modern age in this decade. Modern theofascism and the state support of terrorism arguably began in Iran. It seems fitting that the stage may be set so that it may die there as well.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    April 26, 2006

    Kicking Assad

    President Bush has dropped the economic hammer on Syria for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri early last year.

    Via al-Reuters:

    President George W. Bush on Wednesday issued an order blocking the assets of anyone connected with the February 14, 2005, assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

    Bush in a statement said the new order blocks the property and interests of anyone determined to have been involved in Hariri's assassination and that additional steps were being taken "concerning certain actions of the government of Syria."

    A U.N. report last year implicated senior Syrian security officials in Hariri's killing and said Syria was impeding the inquiry. Syria has denied involvement.

    Bush's order does not designate anyone specifically, but establishes the criteria for who would fall under the order.

    In addition to blocking the assets of anyone found to be involved in Hariri's assassination, the order targets anyone involved in an assassination or bombing in Lebanon since October 1, 2004, related to Hariri's killing or implicating the Syrian government, an administration official said.

    Iran has garnered most of the media's attention lately due to its nuclear ambitions, but the President has not forgotten Bashir Assad's murderous regime. These sanctions should bring pressure to bear on the Syria-Iran alliance, and it will be very interesting to watch to see if this pressure destabilizes Bashir Assad's already tenuous grip on power.

    The full text of the Executive Order is available here.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    April 25, 2006

    Musab's Happy Video Fun Time

    In a rare Internet-posted video, terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi appeared for 34 minutes, blasting the United States for a "crusader-Zionist war" against Islam. Rusty has a nice roundup going at the Jawa Report, and once you've seen that along with the analysis of Bill Roggio and Walid Phares of the Counterterrorism Blog you've pretty much got your bases covered.

    That said, I did watch the entire 34 minutes, and think I have a few observations that may be of use.

    Throughout the bulk of the video, Zarqawi's eyes seem "heavy," blinking slowly and not appearing to open fully. At first I thought this was possibly the result of the lighting in the room in which the video was shot, but people responding to too-bright lights tend to blink more quickly, not more lethargically. In addition, through some sections of the video, Zarqawi seems short of breath. Some of the film transitions seem abrupt, as if trying to cover this.

    In addition, Zarqawi's face seems somewhat bloated when compared to admittedly outdated photos. This may simply be a function of age, fatigue, and what is likely a substandard diet, but it could also be the result of some kinds of medications. This is all blind speculation, of course, but worth considering.

    The rest of the video is well covered in transcripts (Rusty's post has a rough one), and so I'd prefer to look at elements of the film not heavily covered.

    First things first, I'd like to gently correct Athena at Terrorism Unveilled. Zarqawi is not wearing a suicide vest in this video, just a standard AK-style chest rig, similar to this Chinese model or this upgraded commercial version. For comparative purposes, several versions of suicide vests modeled by would-be suicide bombers can be seen here.

    By the way, he does fire a M249 that was likely captured from U.S forces. It is a "hero" shot filmed for propoganda purposes, but it simply serves to remind me that a 15 lb machine gun firing 5.56mm rounds best suited for killing woodchucks is a relatively light-recoiling weapon.

    Near the end of the video are several minutes of outdoor footage, including the "hero" shooting video, footage of Zarqawi walking, and a few seconds of video of the flatbed truck above, with what appears to be a machine gun on a fixed mount in the bed.

    Up until this point, I'd make the argument that this video could have been shot just about anywhere, but the gun-truck footage throws that in doubt. If this is indeed a fixed-mount, it seems very unlikely that this vehicle has been anywhere near where coalition forces could have seen it. That would seem to indicate that this is either a recently-modified truck, or video was filmed in a very remote region where Zarqawi felt safe enough for an open display of weapons that are not easily hidden.

    Perhaps this was not even filmed in Iraq.

    And then we have this.. well, err, rocket. It appears to be homemade, and suspiciously close to the size of a paper towel roll. It was fired by a hand-lit fuse, just like every ACME rocket delivered to Wile E. Coyote. It did actually go off, but to what effect we may never know. The warhead on a rocket this small can't be much larger or much more lethal than a Cadbury egg.

    The "shell fragments" would presumably melt in your mouth, not on your hands...

    This larger rocket is also "ACME-fused," and is most likely unguided, but it would potentially present a downrange threat somewhere, though the rudimentary fins indicate that cold be just about anywhere on a 90-degree arc.


    CNN tells us that Zarqawi is mocking the United States military in this propaganda film.

    My response?

    Beep, Beep.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:25 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

    The Bright, Smoldering City on the Hill

    Via the NY Times:

    Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it will refuse to answer questions about a second, secret uranium-enrichment program, according to European and American diplomats. The existence of the program was disclosed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this month.

    The diplomats said Iran had also refused to answer questions about other elements of its nuclear program that international inspectors had focused on because they could indicate a program to produce nuclear weapons.

    Iran continues down a comically transparent path towards nuclear weapons, while threatening with extinction a country estimated to have well in excess of 100 nuclear weapons of its own, along with multiple delivery systems that it can deliver at will.

    Do you ever get the feeling that the mullah's cries for Armageddon are all too sincere?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    April 21, 2006

    Friday Nukes

    I'll be in meetings most of the day today, but to tide you over, check out what Ray Robison has uncovered regarding documentation that seems to support the theory that Saddam Hussein was looking into nuclear weapons, here, here, here and here.

    Robison, a current military operations research analyst and a former member of the Iraq Survey Group for the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been able to dig up newspaper articles, original Iraqi documentation, and satellite photos of the base where nuclear testing is rumored to have occurred.

    Interesting stuff.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    April 17, 2006

    The Sheepdog's War

    I've been thinking a lot about sheepdogs lately, if only in the back of my mind. Not the physical kind, of course, but the metaphorical, philosophical beast described by LTC Dave Grossman (Retired), that I was first exposed to in Bill Whittle's excellent "Tribes" some month's ago. Because of Whittle's essay, I've also been doing a lot of soul-searching about what it means to be Grey, and how it all relates to the budding war with Iran.

    LTC Grossman's essay "On sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" was forwarded to me this morning in an email by another retired sheepdog and I present it to you in its entirety:

    ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

    By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER,
    Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

    Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

    One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

    Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

    Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

    I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell.

    Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, And someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

    "Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

    "Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

    If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.

    But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

    Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

    But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial. The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

    Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

    The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

    Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

    Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed,
    right along with the young ones.

    Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warrior hood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a
    difference.

    There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

    There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

    Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

    Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

    There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

    Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

    If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

    For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

    I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

    Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

    Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

    It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

    Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling." Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

    If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."

    This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.

    Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

    Most of us can define where we fall in Grossman's essay if we are honest with ourselves. Most won't be honest of course, including many of you reading this. Dishonesty to one's self is, after all, the defining characteristic of Sheep, even perfectly nice Sheep.

    Bill Whittle makes a slightly different observation. While Grossman speaks of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves, Whittle's essay seeks to define us as self-selecting tribes:

    ...let's get past Republican and Democrat, Red and Blue, too. Let's talk about these two Tribes: Pink, the color of bunny ears, and Grey, the color of a mechanical pencil lead.

    I live in both worlds. In entertainment, everything is Pink, the color of Angelyne's Stingray – it's exciting and dynamic and glamorous. I'm also a pilot, and I know honest-to-God rocket scientists, and combat flight crews and Special Ops guys -- stone-cold Grey, all of them -- and am proud and deeply honored to call them my friends.

    The Pink Tribe is all about feeling good: feeling good about yourself! Sexually, emotionally, artistically – nothing is off limits, nothing is forbidden, convention is fossilized insanity and everybody gets to do their own thing without regard to consequences, reality, or natural law. We all have our own reality – one small personal reality is called “science,†say – and we Make Our Own Luck and we Visualize Good Things and There Are No Coincidences and Everything Happens for a Reason and You Can Be Whatever You Want to Be and we all have Special Psychic Powers and if something Bad should happen it's because Someone Bad Made It Happen. A Spell, perhaps.

    The Pink Tribe motto, in fact, is the ultimate Zen Koan, the sound of one hand clapping: EVERYBODY IS SPECIAL.

    Then, in the other corner, there is the Grey Tribe – the grey of reinforced concrete. This is a Tribe where emotion is repressed because Emotion Clouds Judgment. This is the world of Quadratic Equations and Stress Risers and Loads Torsional, Compressive and Tensile, a place where Reality Can Ruin Your Best Day, the place where Murphy mercilessly picks off the Weak and the Incompetent, where the Speed Limit is 186,282.36 miles per second, where every bridge has a Failure Load and levees come in 50 year, 100 year and 1000 Year Flood Flavors.

    The Grey Tribe motto is, near as I can tell, THINGS BREAK SOMETIMES AND PLEASE DON'T LET IT BE MY BRIDGE.

    In America right now, we are engaging in a philosophical battle where the Sheep are busily denying the teeth of the Wolves, even to the point of attacking the sheepdogs because they, too, have teeth. Even when the Sheep become confused between wolf and sheepdog, it is still very easy for sheepdogs to tell wolf from sheep; and Pink from Grey.

    Conflict with Iran should be avoided if possible, but not at all costs, and it appears the point of no return is approaching with breathtaking speed.

    Iran is dominated by a radical sect of Shi'a Islam that seeks to bring about the end of this world as an immediate shortcut to their eternal salvation. Mutually-Assured Destruction that has been so repellant to secular nations for the past 60 years does not apply to Iran. This is not the desire of the bulk of Iran's people. The Mullahs believe that a blinding flash and momentary pain is all that separates them from an eternity in Paradise.

    Iran is building up both their technology and their rhetoric at a time that their current President thinks he speaks directly with their Messiah. There need be no clearer message, one simply has to listen, and the sheep will adamantly refuse.

    It is a suicidal path the Sheep have taken, but to acknowledge any other possibility is to acknowledge the failure of their own ideology, an ideology they adhere to with no less fervor than that of Mullahs that would set alight the world.

    Sheep and Wolf, predator and prey, they are both blinded to facts by their fanaticism. As Whittle defined the Pinks before:

    ...nothing is forbidden, convention is fossilized insanity and everybody gets to do their own thing without regard to consequences, reality, or natural law.

    The consequences of the Mullah's eschatology and the denial of the Sheep are a recipe for the End of Days, an orgasm of Pink philosophies conspiring to obliterate millions in a blinding flash. Only the Sheepdogs stand in the way.

    This is the Sheepdog's war to fight, and fight they must. That is the reality that has presented itself to us. As Sheepdogs and as Greys this is not a war we would choose, but one that has been thrust upon us by the overly tolerant of the West and overly intolerant of the Middle East. Iran's Mullah's would have nuclear weapons, and they have promised over and over again to use them, potentially triggering the deaths of millions.

    This must not stand. Iran must not have nuclear weapons, nor nuclear facilities that can enrich nuclear materials to create these weapons. Any and all reasonable options should be on the table to prevent this eventuality, conventional and unconventional alike.

    Let the Sheep bleat if the bombs must fall. At the very least, their noise shows that their throats have not been ripped out by the Wolves.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:30 PM | Comments (44) | TrackBack

    April 13, 2006

    Spin. Cut. Run.

    To hear Editor & Publisher tell it, you would think that Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick was standing firmly behind his page A1 story from yesterday, where his opening paragraphs strongly asserted that the Bush Administration ignored the "unanimous findings" of a team of weapons experts to purposefully present the American people with false information.

    The Post's agenda-driven journalism was destroyed before the first copy of the print edition hit the street.

    Warrick's article was a perfect example of modern yellow journalism. He following an increasingly common technique of making a strong assertion in the lede (opening paragraphs)of a story, only providing any balancing coverage much further down in the story, while typically being dismissive of it or giving it little rhetorical weight (Jeff Goldstein provides and excellent look at the phenomena as applied to this story at Protein Wisdom).

    Is Warrick really standing firm behind his article? Hardly.

    Warricks's new article, hiding on page A18, has backed away from the "unanimous findings" claim that was proven factually inaccurate in his scurrilous lede. A June 7, 2003 NY Times article found by Seixon found that far from presenting "unanimous findings," this third team of experts was "divided sharply" in their opinion of what the trailer represented. Warrick's sources—all anonymous—seem to be contradicting each other, bringing into doubt their credibility.

    In addition to the credibility of Warrick's anonymous sources and the discrepanies about the report they issued, all mention of the two teams of military experts that thought that the trailers were mobile bio-weapon labs have been removed from the follow-up story. Unable to address the fact that their existence proves he was presenting a minority view (even one that turned out to be accurate), Warrick seems intent on deleting all references to these contradictory teams mentioned in earlier article. The "smoking gun" has turned out to be what Seixan noted as a "minority report about a minority report."

    Is Joby Warrick standing by his story, or is he guilty of spinning, cutting, and running?

    I report. You deride.

    Update: Blue Crab Boulevard says, "What's 'unclear' here is if Mr. Warrick was aware that he was writing a hit piece or just that bad a writer."

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:26 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

    April 12, 2006

    Well, the Smell is Certainly Biological...

    The Washington Post, which within the past week blasted President Bush for declassifying a story to defend false allegations by Joe Wilson, collected classified information of its own through anonymous sources and leaked it on page one Wednesday, declaring:

    On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

    The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

    A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

    Framed the way Joby Warrick presents it in these opening paragraphs, it seems like a slam-dunk case of the Bush Administration lying... but the Post is being less than forthright with it's readers, attempting to bias and shape their perceptions before giving them all the facts.

    What facts would those be?

    That the one team of inspectors Warrick cites in his opening paragraphs were not the only team to examine these trailers, and that two other teams that initially inspected the trailers did not agree with the team highlighted in the Post article's opening paragraphs. As a matter of fact, one has to navigate a carefully parsed and misleading claim of the "unanimous findings" that were far from unanimous before finding out in the twelfth paragraph that two other teams reached the exact opposite conclusion:

    Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

    The actual facts are that a single team of nine civilian experts wrote a "unanimous" report that was only unanimous within their one group, while two military teams of experts reached the conclusion that these were bioweapons labs. By careful and I believe willful deceit, the Post would seem to purposefully imply that all experts examining the suspected bio-weapons trailers unanimously came to the conclusion that these trailers were not used to manufacture bio-weapons, and that the Administration blatantly lied in the face of the evidence. The actual facts are that this was not only a not a unanimous report, but that the "unanimous" report of the one team was actually a minority view overall.

    This is willful misrepresentation of the facts by Joby Warrick and the editors of the Washington Post in a page one story. There were indeed varied interpretations of the suitability of these trailers to manufacture bio-weapons, yet the Post article purposefully decived its readers to lend weight and column inches to the minority viewpoint that was not unanimous as they suggested.

    This appears to be a specific, calculated deception of a national newspaper's readership. The Washington Post must be held accountable.

    Update: Seixon finds news reports on these trailers, and determines that the "sharply divided" views of this third team of experts then (2003), is not synonymous with the "unanimous" view attributed to the same team pushed by the Washington Post day.

    Joby Warrick's article keeps geting more suspect by the hour...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:08 AM | Comments (73) | TrackBack

    April 11, 2006

    Killing Allah

    Jefferson Morley's Washington Post blog entry today, Talk of Iran Strikes Gets Cool Response, in which Morley summarized world media opinion on threats of a possible attack on Iran's nuclear program, triggered an interesting response from a reader who called himself Farhad Saidieh:

    This is a good article, but when have the USA backed down, especially if it would require them to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iranian regime; the withdraw of the "axis of evil" statement; and then removal of accusations of Iran's links to terrorism/freedom fighters. Even if the USA felt that this may some how be in its interest the Israelis wouldn't allow it and would drag the USA back. There is another way. It would require the USA to acknowledge that it does not have the right, or moral standing to be the Judge, Jury and Executioner. Only then will the end of the war on Terrorism start.

    As you may imagine, I had my own response to Farhad:

    Farhad,

    Why does it seem you are more interested in ending the War on Terrorism, than on ending terrorism itself? I think you have overplayed your hand and stated your intentions a little too clearly.

    Iran is a terrorist state that openly seeks the ultimate weapon, while maintaining long-standing calls for the eradication of Israel. It is no great stretch to see that a nuclear Iran would try to destroy Israel as soon as it thought it was possible. Before dying, the Israeli counterstrike is certain to exact a horrible toll of its own. All told, tens of millions will die in this ever-more-likely scenario, and the Middle East will become inhabitable for thousands of years because of nuclear radiation.

    The projected and all-but-promised Islamic first strike will clearly mark Islam as an aberration; a threat to all humanity. I doubt any of the "civilized" nations will think twice about unleashing their own arsenals, conventional or otherwise, in smashing other Islamic states that can be seen as a threat to those not already killed by the Iranian-triggered war.

    Islam will be smashed, consigned to the ash-heap of history with other failed religions of past centuries. Is this the future you want for Islam? That is the path you are choosing.

    If western powers back down now, Iran will end your world, and your religion, and the only solace you will find is that you outlasted the Israelis by a breath.

    This is the future Iran would choose for you. I suggest you find another way.

    Too many people in this country are allowing their views on developments in Iran's nuclear proliferation gamble to be colored by their like or dislike of President Bush. This is a mistake.

    As Mark Steyn noted in an excellent commentary today:

    Anyone who spends half an hour looking at Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years sees five things:
    1. contempt for the most basic international conventions;
    2. long-reach extraterritoriality;
    3. effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism;
    4. a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama);
    5. an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action.

    Later:

    …the extremist [Iranian President] Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while the moderate [former Iranian President] Rafsanjani has declared that Israel is "the most hideous occurrence in history," which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" in one blast, because "a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world." Evidently wiping Israel off the map seems to be one of those rare points of bipartisan consensus in Tehran, the Iranian equivalent of a prescription drug plan for seniors: we're just arguing over the details.

    So the question is: Will they do it?

    And the minute you have to ask, you know the answer.

    When Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker that the Administration is planning contingencies for possible military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites, and that even our own nuclear options were being considered as a possible response in some scenarios, my initial response was one of "isn't it their job to consider all options?" I did not however, actually think using nuclear weapons was a workable solution, anymore than did the generals in Hersh's anonymously-sourced article who threatened to resign if the nuclear option wasn't removed from the table.

    Like the President, I do not desire military conflict—or in light of Iranian intrusion into Iraq, more military conflict—with Iran, and would much prefer a diplomatic settlement where no more lives need be lost. I agree with the apparent assessment of Steyn and others that the Iranian mullahcracy will not stop until they are stopped, and that stoppage, like so many things in the Islamic world, will only occur at the point of the sword.

    The American nuclear option of using B61-11 tactical thermonuclear bombs or similar munitions is unsettling and unpleasant, and only to be thought of seriously if all diplomatic efforts fail, and no other military response seems capable. But it is an option, and one that must be considered. They stakes—tens of millions of lives across the Middle East and southwest Asia—are simply too high. Yes, some generals will not want to even consider this option, but generals tend fight the last war, and the civilian leadership most be more nimble in considering what may occur if we fail to stop the Iranians here.

    To fail here is tantamount to the total destruction of Israel and the Palestinians, the poisoning of Jordan, Lebanon, and surrounding nations by fallout from Iranian nuclear weapons, and the destruction of much of Iran in retaliation by an Israeli response, even as the Jewish state ceases to exist. It is a price Iran says it is willing to pay, but what of neighboring Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan? What of other nations that will reap what Iran has sown? They have no say is determining this nuclear winter that ends their lives, and yet they all stand to lose because of an Iranian mullahcracy that has never deviated from its plan to rule the world for Islam, or die.

    Iran cannot win this war, but it can destroy much, including Islam itself.

    An Iran-triggered nuclear war would wipe out a significant portion of the cradle of civilization, and draw withering fire from suddenly isolationist populations worldwide that would prudently declare Islam a threat to the security of their states. The religion would be banned in many nations, it adherents driven out or underground in others, and the remaining Islamic nations not dying of radiation poisoning and internal wars brought about by this strife will be targeted at the slightest hint of provocation.

    How long will the first Islamic nuclear state, Pakistan, last in this environment of well-earned distrust for the Islamic Bomb? What will happen to Pakistan's nuclear weapons when Pervez Musharraf is no longer firmly in charge? If Pakistan falters and control of its weapons is in doubt for even a second, the response will be swift, punitive, and decisive.

    If Iran succeeds in its unholy task, Islam itself may die because the remainder of the world will deem it too dangerous to exist. Iran will kill Allah. It may take generations, but Allah will be a god as dead and forgotten as Huitzlopochtli and Heimdall. One billion Muslims armed mainly with small arms cannot compete against the modern world's militaries should the battle ever fully be joined. They will achieve their Islamic Armageddon, but they will go "into the light" alone, as forgotten as the followers of Odin and Ra.

    President Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address:

    We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

    Iran is the most dangerous of those remaining regimes, and it is seeking the world's most destructive weapons. Diplomacy is our first option as it should always be. If all else fails, however, we owe it to the world to resolve the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions with any and all of the technologies at our disposal.

    Too many lives hang in the balance not to take that difficult step.

    Update: And time draws short.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:08 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    Yes, Saddam Recruited Terrorists

    For those you who read Captain's Quarters this is old news, but Ed Morrisey hired two translators to review a section of a captured Iraqi document dated March 17, 2001 that originally translated as:

    The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

    According to this translation, it seems that Saddam's military was actively recruiting suicide bombers to attack American targets in the months preceding 9/11. Did the two additional translators that Ed Morrissey hired reach a similar translation?

    Yes.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    April 10, 2006

    Hersh, Bush, Nukes and Iran

    I seem to be among the last of the political bloggers commenting on Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker, where he writes that the Administration has not ruled out the option of using small tactical nukes (including B61-11s) to eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

    I can't say that I'm surprised the nuclear option was on the table; I did write about this exact same bomb not once, but twice in a more hypothetical sense more than a week ago, precisely because I think Bush once said something to the effect that "all options were on the table," and to me, "all" does in fact mean all. Predictably, the left thinks that the Hersh article is this week's concrete proof that Bush is the anti-Christ (as if that is a new opinion for them), some on the far right are ready to nuke first and ask questions later, and most center-right blogger's realize that a the use of a B61-11 is a worst-case scenario option to be used only if all other attempts fail.

    What does amaze me is rhetoric from some here in the United States willing to label Bush as insane or unhinged for what has been to date a measured, reasonable response, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claims to have felt a holy light while addressing the United Nations in September, has time and again spoken of an "end times" scenario that his regime is rumored to have pledged to try to bring about. A Holocaust-denier with Messianic delusions runs a End-times-focused regime that has openly stated it would like to see Israel "wiped off the map." They are apparently hoping to trigger a massive nuclear war which they think will bring forth the Hidden Imam, and Bush is the one who is insane for being willing to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons that could end tens of millions of lives?

    The guys at South Park are correct. We are a nation of people with their heads buried firmly in the sand.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:15 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    April 05, 2006

    Insurgent Helicopter Hoax?

    Drudge is running a link to this AP story, which claims the pilots of an American AH-64 Longbow attack helicopter were shot down, and their burning bodies pulled from the wreckage.

    My PC's video isn't working right now, but the video is downloadable at the SITE Institute, where they have two still photos captured from the video that make me immediately suspicious. The timestamp on the video states that the date of the film is March 19, 2000. In addition, the still photo on the right seems to show an airborne helicopter with what appears to be (in the one grainy still photo can I see) skids on the undercarriage.

    Current-issue UH-60 Blackhawks that are the predominate utility and MEDEVAC helicopter of the U.S. Army have wheels.

    I'll update this after I have had a chance to look at the video later today, but I suspect this may not be authentic footage.


    Update: The SITE video is not the same film of the crash as reported in the AP story.
    Bareknucklepolitics.com has the correct video. It is of very low quality, but despite that, it is not being disputed by the U.S. military. Without anything else to go on, I'll assume that the downing of the helicopter is real.

    Second Update: It now appears that the U.S. military is doubting the authenticity of the video footage, even while a stateside defense contractor says the tape looks authentic. The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discrepancy is that the Army is aware of forensic evidence from the recent crash that does not match up with the footage shown in the video. The contractor would not necessarily have access to this information.

    Variables such as the condition of the downed helicopter, the terrain of the crash site, and even the condition of the human remains collected may very well provide the military with evidence suggesting that the footage was either staged, or was footage from a previous crash.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    April 04, 2006

    The "Deadliest Day"

    DEAR NEW YORK TIMES: When the largest single fatality-causing event for your (well, our) soldiers in recent months is a single vehicle wreck, isn't it officially time to retire the theme that we're losing the war?

    Note: spelling error corrected. (h/t danking70)

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:57 AM | Comments (59) | TrackBack

    March 31, 2006

    A Conventional Nuke

    Sometimes the outright stupidity and shallowness of thinking in the general news media staggers me. But before I blast them, I need to start with myself, for getting so close initially, and then not putting 2+2 together.

    Last night I mocked the U.S. military's plan to test a 700-ton bomb in the Nevada desert. I noted that no plane every built could come close to delivering a conventional bomb even a third that size. I wrote it off as a blustering response to Iran's refusal to stop uranium enrichment, but not the test of a serious munition.

    I suggested, "If the Pentagon wants to send a real message to the Iranians, they could test a B61-11. I think the folks in Las Vegas and Tehran would be much more impressed with the show."

    It wasn't until over 12 hours later that I figured out that something very similar to that might be the point of the test.

    The 700-ton bomb will use close to 600-tons of a special mixture of ammonium nitrate-based explosives.

    According to Global Security.org, the B61 Mod 11 thermonuclear bomb has a W-61 EPW (earth penetrating warhead) that ranges in yield from 360-kiloton strategic bomb down, if Nuclear Weapon Archive.org is correct, to a tactical penetrator with a yield as low as .3 kilotons. If I'm doing my math correctly, a 0.3 Kt weapon is the theoretical equivalent of 300 tons yield in a convention explosive under certain conditions.

    Could the 700-ton bomb test be a surrogate for the shockwave effect of a low-yield .3 Kt B61-11 nuclear warhead?

    Neither the Washington Post nor Reuters, nor any other news agency seems to have caught on to this possibility. Then again, they haven't figured out yet that this massive bomb being tested could never get airborne, so this shouldn't be a surprise.

    We appear to be running a "nukeless" nuclear test of the kind of ground-penetrating and literally ground-breaking bomb we may be forced to use again Iran. The "empty threat" I mocked yesterday isn't very funny anymore.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:25 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    The Big Nothing

    On the day that Iran stated it would not halt uranium enrichment, the U.S. military made what some are interpreting as a thinly-veilled threat:

    The US military plans to detonate a 700 tonne explosive charge in a test called "Divine Strake" that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, a senior defense official said.

    "I don't want to sound glib here but it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," said James Tegnelia, head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

    Tegnelia said the test was part of a US effort to develop weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

    "We have several very large penetrators we're developing," he told defense reporters.

    "We also have -- are you ready for this - a 700-tonne explosively formed charge that we're going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada," he said.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, this would be one of the most pathetic messages we've ever sent, as it is by far the emptiest threat we can make. To put it plainly (or perhaps planely), this bomb project could never get off the ground.

    Literally.

    According to the article, this bomb weighs "700 tonnes." It doesn't exactly specify if this is 700 long tons ( 2,240 lbs/ton, or a total of 1,588,000 lbs) or 700 short tons (2,000 lbs/ton, or a total of 1,400,000 lbs), but in the end the key detail is that no airplane on earth can carry such a payload.

    The massive American C5 Galaxy carries a payload of 240,000 lbs. The world's largest cargo airplane is the Antonov An-225, which carries a maximum payload of "just" 551,150 lbs.

    This is an empty threat, as the Iranians surely know.

    If the Pentagon wants to send a real message to the Iranians, they could test a B61-11. I think the folks in Las Vegas and Tehran would be much more impressed with the show.

    Update: a closer look reveals that the 700-lb bomb may be a surrogate for a low yield B61-11.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:33 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    March 27, 2006

    What They Saved

    News is now breaking in the trial of the so-called "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth plane on 9/11 and fly it into the White House.

    Via Breitbart:

    Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House.

    Moussaoui's testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom as he disclosed details he had never revealed before. It was in stark contrast to Moussaoui's previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release a radical Egyptian sheik imprisoned on earlier terrorist convictions.

    Quite frankly, it is hard to trust anything Zacarias Moussaoui has to say, but if he is telling the truth that his target was the White House, it might provide an answer to the question of Flight 93's target that September morning.

    It has long been suspected that the hijackers on Flight 93 were likely targeting either the Capitol Building or the White House. As Moussaoui was arrested just one month before the attacks, it seems likely that the other the terror cells would stick with their original targets instead of trying to retarget shortly before the attack. If Moussaoui's statement it true that his target was the White House, then it would seem likely that the terrorists on Flight 93 had the Capitol Building as their target.

    We know that the heroes of Flight 93 prevented an attack on a Washington target when they stormed the cockpit over Pennsylvania that September morning. If Moussaoui is correct, we now have a reason to suspect exactly what it was they saved.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Bush Lied, Yadda Yadda Yadda

    The NY Times has a huge non-story today, where it was found that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did not wait until the week before the invasion of Iraq to do their war planning.

    When presented in that context, of course, it really is a non-story, other than the fact that the document provides some interesting historical context of the kind of commentary that goes on between leaders in a run-up to a conflict.

    Ed Morrissey says pretty much what I would say about the matter, summing it up:

    In short, the Times presents us with a memo that shows the US and UK understanding that Saddam would not cooperate with the UN nor voluntarily disarm or step aside; history proved them correct on all those assertions. Given those as reality, the two nations prepared for war. If the Times finds this surprising, it demonstrates their cluelessness all the more.

    I suspect it isn't cluelessness as much as it is political opportunism by the Times, which has consistently covered this conflict in a way that makes al Jazeera unnecessary.

    Bush Lied, People Died. I think I've heard that before.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:49 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    March 23, 2006

    Beyond the Green Zone

    Thoughts on American combat journalists, the lazy and the dead, from Mind in the Qatar.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 22, 2006

    Battle Math

    The war in Iraq is sometimes a numbers game.

    Yesterday:

    About 100 masked gunmen stormed a prison near the Iranian border Tuesday, cutting phone wires, freeing all the inmates and leaving behind a scene of devastation--20 dead policemen, burned-out cars and a smoldering jailhouse.

    At least 10 attackers were killed in the dawn assault on the Muqdadiyah lockup on the eastern fringe of the Sunni Triangle, police said.

    33 inmates were released in the attack, roughly half or (according to some reports, more) were insurgents, and the other half were common criminals. Ten insurgents were thought to have died, along with 20 police officers.

    Battle result: 20 Iraqi policemen killed, 16 (est.) insurgents escaped from the prison, and ten insurgents were killed. A rough net “gain†of 26 bodies for the insurgency and a palpable P.R. boost that lasted all of 24 hours.

    Today:

    Insurgents attacked a police station Wednesday for a second day in a row, but U.S. and Iraqi forces captured 50 of them after a two-hour gun battle.

    About 60 gunmen attacked the police station in Madain, south of Baghdad, with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles, said police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammadawi. U.S. troops and a special Iraqi police unit responded, catching the insurgents in crossfire, he said.

    Four police were killed, including the commander of the special unit, and five were wounded, al-Mohammadawi said. None of the attackers died, and among the captives was a Syrian.

    Battle result: 4 Iraqi policemen killed, 0 insurgents escaped from the prison, and 50 insurgents were captured. The result is net “gain†for the day of 46 captured insurgents.

    If recent history is any indicator, those captured will provide significant information. Typically, these large-scale captures end up revealing operational details, exposing ammunition caches, and releasing other vital intelligence information that may end up shutting down the insurgency in this area.

    The media will more than likely present these two insurgent assaults as being equal, but opposite in effect. This of course is far from true.

    The insurgency is much smaller than Iraqi police and military forces, and a two-day net loss of 20 men, especially 20 live men that can threaten the larger network with the information they can reveal, is a far greater loss for the insurgency.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    March 21, 2006

    Civilization vs. Barbarity

    In a speech he is to give later this afternoon in London, Tony Blair is correct that the essential nature of the "long war" we continue to fight is an ideological one:

    "This is not a clash between civilizations, it is a clash about civilization," Blair will say in a speech this afternoon, according to extracts released by his official spokesman.

    "'We' is not the West. 'We' are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. 'We' are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts," he will say.

    While there is no indication that Blair had Afghani Christian Abdul Rahman in mind with this speech, those words easily apply to the case of Rahman, a 40-ish Afghani that converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago, and faces the death penalty in Afghanistan for leaving the “religion of peace.â€

    I wrote about this last night with some restraint, trying to keep in mind that Afghanis live in a far more primitive, basic culture than our own, one that has not substantially changed in the thousand years since Muslims invaded the Hindu kingdoms of Gandhaar & Vaahic Pradesh. The mountain range which dominates the country was named in honor of one of Islam's greatest genocides; "Hindu Kush" is Persian for "Hindu slaughter." Millions of Hindus were put to the sword or forcibly converted to Islam in Afghanistan, and Islamic bloodlust in Afghanistan seems far from sated.

    From the Chicago Tribune:

    Abdul Rahman told his family he was a Christian. He told the neighbors, bringing shame upon his home. But then he told the police, and he could no longer be ignored.

    Now, in a major test of Afghanistan's fledgling court system, Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister.

    "We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail, as she made a cutting motion with her hands. "There's no need to see him."

    Rahman's trial, which started Thursday, is thought to be the first of its kind in Afghanistan. It goes to the heart of the struggle between Islamic reformists and fundamentalists in the country, which is still recovering from 23 years of war and the harsh rule of the Taliban, a radical religious regime that fell in late 2001.

    Even under the more moderate government now in power, Islamic law is supposed to be followed, and many believe it requires the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion.

    "We are Muslim, our fathers were Muslim, our grandfathers were Muslim," said Abdul Manan, Rahman's father, who is 75. "This is an Islamic country. Imagine if your son told a police commander, also a Muslim, that he is a Christian. How would this affect you? It's very difficult for us."

    As Tony Blair's speech states, we are not in a clash between civilizations, but a clash about civilization. What Blair has not directly stated is that most Muslim countries have precious little civilization, or practice civilized behavior. They are trapped in a backward culture hundreds of years in the past. While we hoped that bringing democracy to them would be a start, the sadistic nature of fundamentalist Islam bared by the case of Abdul Rahman makes me wonder if a slow conversion to a moremodernized society is the correct course of action after all.

    We did not deliver Afghanis from the Taliban to allow Afghanis to perpetrate the same crimes against basic human decency. If this murderous intolerance truly is the essence of fundamentalist Islam, then we need to rethink our basic approach to the "religion of peace."


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:27 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    "A Religion of Tolerance"

    Abdul Rahman is on trial for his life in Afghanistan. His crime (h/t Michelle Malkin, who has the round-up) is converting to Christianity:

    Despite the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban government and the presence of 22,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a man who converted to Christianity is being prosecuted in Kabul, and a judge said Sunday that if convicted, he faces the death penalty.

    Abdul Rahman, who is in his 40s, says he converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

    Relatives denounced him as a convert during a custody battle over his children, and he was arrested last month. The prosecutor says Rahman was found with a Bible.

    So Afghans are willing to take our economic aid to develop their battered infrastructure, our medicines to cure their ills, our EOD teams to clear their mines, and our soldiers to hold the Taliban at bay, and yet they are willing to kill a man because he has taken to heart another contribution from us in Christianity.

    The "tolerant" judge hopes for a peaceful resolution:

    "We will ask him if he has changed his mind about being a Christian," Mawlazezadah says. "If he has, we will forgive him, because Islam is a religion of tolerance."

    Afghan is a country with its own laws, and we cannot force them to accept converts to other religions when the most extreme interpretations of their law supposes they have legal "right" to kill Abdul Rahman.

    They, however, do not have any claim to economic or military aid from civilized nations. We have no moral obligation to support a government that would allow Abdul Rahman to be killed. It goes without saying that were we to withdraw our support, the "tolerant" judge himself might meet a judgement of his own at the hands of the remaining elements of the Taliban.

    Judge Mawlazezadah should be introduced to an American phrase attributed to Ben Franklin at the signing of our Declaration of Independence:

    We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

    The neck Judge Mawlazezadah saves may be his own.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:05 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    March 20, 2006

    Utter Liars

    It never ceases to amaze me how liberals claim to "support the troops but not the war."

    What utter liars they are.

    Four months ago
    in the Iraqi city of Haditha, an IED exploded, killing one Marine and wounding two others. After the explosion, the Marines stormed a nearby building and killed 15 people. Three were children. The Pentagon has now launched a criminal investigation.

    Those are the facts.

    There is the possibility that the Marines did gun down innocent civilians as local Iraqis claim.

    But it is equally as possible that one or more people inside the house opened fire upon the Marines in an ambush after the IED went off. It has happened that way frequently, and that exact scenario left ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously wounded, when the IED attack that wounded them was followed by small arms fire from nearby buildings. The attack was broken when coalition forces counterattacked.

    Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.

    They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.

    Steve Clemmons states in his Washington Note:

    Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon Investigating Another U.S. Military Atrocity. When will Rumsfeld be held accountable and fired? [my bold. - ed]

    A crime has not even been established, and yet Clemmons and his nauseous ilk have already deemed our Marines guilty, and presume to pass sentence.

    Steve Soto at the Left Coaster is equally as charitable, asserting:

    At a time when Rummy and others say that things in Iraq are better than reported, and that bad news is the result of bloggers and other enemies of the truth, we find out today that if it hadn't been for videotape, the Pentagon would have blamed the deaths of 15 Iraqis including children four months ago on a roadside bomb. In fact, based on a Time magazine article and the inconvenient videotape of the bodies, the Pentagon now confirms they have opened a criminal investigation to see if our own troops gunned down innocent Iraqi civilians and children as a result of that roadside bombing in Haditha. This comes at the same time that Iraqi police are now accusing US soldiers of executing 11 Iraqis last week, including a 75 year-old woman and an infant.

    [snip]

    Maybe we can call a blogger's ethics conference now on why we are inferior to whatever propaganda is spewed by Rummy. You can bet that if Rummy could have snuffed out that Iraqi journalism student and grabbed that videotape, he would have. [my bold. - ed]

    "Support the troops?"

    Not ours.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:28 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

    FBI Report Shows Evidence of Civil War

    Thousands of news stories have been slavishly devoted to a brewing civil war in Iraq.

    Acording to USA Today:


    …about 15 Americans and 73 Iraqis are killed or injured each day. A USA TODAY analysis of U.S. military data shows the number of U.S. forces killed during the war has declined steadily since November.

    But while preliminary report cites statistics that show a decline in U.S. forces killed, other statistics show an exact opposite trend in another theater of operation far closer to home.

    The January-June 2005 murder rate is up 9.3% in cities with a population of 100,000 to 249,999, and the region "spiraling out of control" isn't the Middle East, but is the Midwest, with a murder rate jumping 4.9%.

    Forget Baghdad, let's pull out of Des Moines.

    Update: Ed Driscoll notes this might be an extension of the Cartoon War.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    March 18, 2006

    More Abuse From Iraq

    Task Force 6-26 is under the stark, naked bulb of the New York Times crack investigative staff (the one that never makes mistakes), and picked up something from their unhealthy obsession with abuse at Abu Ghraib:

    Most of the people interviewed for this article were midlevel civilian and military Defense Department personnel who worked with Task Force 6-26 and said they witnessed abuses, or who were briefed on its operations over the past three years.

    Many were initially reluctant to discuss Task Force 6-26 because its missions are classified. But when pressed repeatedly by reporters who contacted them, they agreed to speak about their experiences and observations out of what they said was anger and disgust over the unit's treatment of detainees and the failure of task force commanders to punish misconduct more aggressively. The critics said the harsh interrogations yielded little information to help capture insurgents or save American lives. [my bold - ed.]

    Once again, the Times is unable or unwilling to provide any direct evidence of their charges, relying on anonymous sources and injuries that could have come from combat against American forces or resisting capture as well as the abuse they allege.

    I hope survivors of the overzealous NY Times interrogations weren't coerced into giving statements under duress that would free insurgents or endanger American lives.

    I'd hate to have to drag Bill Keller in front of a tribunal...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:42 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    March 16, 2006

    Chatter

    Several bloggers... okay, a bunch of bloggers... have noticed increasing al Qaeda "chatter" as high or high than the months leading up to 9/11. Many are attaching this "chatter" to a significant date around the corner, the March 20th third anniversary of the U.S invasion of Iraq.

    Some folks are spooked over the possibility that the NCAA mens's basketball tournament might be a target, and today's scare in San Diego didn't help to quite that theory.

    Quite frankly, if I were an al Qaeda planner, a basketball game wouldn't be my first pick.

    I'd consider the NCAA tournament arenas too hard of a target to easily penetrate, without enough civilian targets to warrant the effort needed for a major attack. The Twin Towers were "soft" targets to a certain extent and had roughly 50,000 potential victims. Why waste limited resources on a post-9/11 basketball arena with increased security, an unfavorable layout, and far fewer people? It doesn't make the most tactical sense.

    And there are other issues.

    In addition to pure carnage, al Qaeda is also into symbolism. The Twin Towers were a symbol of our economic reach and might, just as the Pentagon was the symbol of our military power. Flight 93 ended up in a field in Shanksville, PA, but was more than likely targeted at one of the seats of our political power, either the White House or the U.S Capitol.

    If you were a terrorist planner, imagine a scenario where:

    • the potential victim pool more than twice that of the Twin Towers
    • the target is "soft," completely exploitable in some way
    • there is some cultural significance to the target
    • the attack can be tied to a culturally important date

    If you were a member of al Qaeda with that tempting target in front of you, what would you say?

    How about, “Gentlemen, start your engines.â€

    NASCAR, while scoffed at by some, is the second most popular professional sport in U.S. television ratings, and draws by far the largest crowds of any U.S sporting event. The NEXTEL Cup Series is the premiere division of NASCAR, and they happen to be racing at the Atlanta Motor Speedway, a 1.5-mile track, this Sunday, March 19.

    By the time the race starts at 1:30 PM local time (9:30 PM in the evening in the Middle East), up to 125,000 fans could be in attendance, along with the dozens of drivers to which fans have developed fierce loyalties.

    An unmodified single-engine plane can carry a bioweapon agent over this concentrated open-air target, disperse it into the crowd by the crudest of means, simply pouring (a powder) or spraying (an aerosol) over the grandstands and infield, and run a significant chance of infecting hundreds or thousands or more, just before intentionally crashing the plane into the stands in horrific fireball in front of a live nationwide audience.

    Footage of the crash is sure to be played over and over again on the 20th throughout the Middle East, with credit claimed by al Qaeda on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

    It could be hours or days later after infected fans have scattered to their hometowns across the country that symptoms begin to show, with a predictable public panic ensuing in a country already primed by the media for an avian flu epidemic.

    Chatter?

    I sure hope the NSA is listening...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:58 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    Which One of these Things is Not Like the Other?

    As folks on the right and left are both botching their reporting on Operation Swarmer, which CNN accurately reports (for a change) as the "largest air assault operation since the invasion of Iraq nearly three years ago" I want to take a second to get things straightened out.

    The is a huge difference between an "air assault" and a "bombing raid."

    This is a Blackhawk helicopter, most often used to transport men and equipment to combat zones:


    This is a F/A-18 Hornet, one of the premiere strike fighters in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and an aircraft often called upon to drop guided and unguided bombs on the bad guys:

    Now, which do you see warming up on the runway in this CNN photo prior to Operation Swarmer?

    An "airborne assault" is moving infantry units via air transport to a combat zone. It is often accomplished via helicopters, but can also be accomplished by dropping soldiers from airplanes via parachutes or in glider insertions, though I don't think we've used gliders since Operation Market Garden in World War II.

    We've been using helicopter air assaults for over 40 years, and bringing soldiers to a combat zone by helicopter is quite different than an airstrike dropping bombs.

    Let's see if we can keep that little detail straight, okay?


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:15 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    March 14, 2006

    The Case for Targeting Tehran

    The Jerusalem Post reports that the Pentagon is looking into the possibility of striking Iran's nuclear facilities, as Iran may force a military response by refusing to back down from the further development of a nuclear weapons program, despite growing international pressure.

    I covered the subject in Thunder over Iran in December in some detail, and do not doubt for a second that the IDF/AF is capable of inflicting significant damage on Iran's nuclear facilities if they do take this route. Damage, of course, could be far more extensive if Israeli commando units on the ground, or other allied air and ground forces also participated in the strike. Unsurprisingly, Great Britain and the United States have assets in the region capable of conducting such a strike.

    What remains shrouded in doubt is the retaliatory capability and intentions of Iran and its allies.

    Iran is rumored in some circles to already have some nuclear weapons capability, but those rumors are far from confirmed. Iran can, however, potentially strike Israel with its Shihab-3 missile carrying conventional or non-nuclear WMDs that it may have in its possession. A WMD strike by Iran would be counterproductive and justify more reprisal attacks against it, but as Iran has not missed a chance to make a bad decision to date, so it would hardly be surprising if this eventuality happened.

    There is also the probability that Iran's ally Syria might be pushed by Tehran to honor their mutual defense pact by launching an attack against Israel, but I suspect that Syria would not uphold their end of the agreement. Faced with an unstable regime at home and the quite real possibility of crushing military defeat at the hands of the IDF in the east and an a nearly-assured response (or threat of a response) from U.S. air and armored forces stationed in Iraq's al-Anbar province to the west, not to mention the very real possibility of a coup at home, Syria's strongman would likely chose to sit this one out.

    If Assad does not honor the pact, he risks losing the support of his Iranian ally. If he does honor the pact, he risks losing his country. Either eventually is a plus for the United States and Israel.

    Iran-supported terrorist organization Hamas would almost certainly attack Israel with a spate of suicide bombings and rocket attacks in response to an Israeli strike on Iran, but this would actually play into the hands of the Israelis, further delegitimizing the Hamas-led Palestinian government and providing Israel with an excuse to crack down harder against Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the West Bank, Gaza, and southern Lebanon. Again, an armed retaliatory response is likely to be more of a benefit to Israel.

    In many respects, the continued press forward by the Iranian government with their nuclear ambitions could very well trigger a small war that changes the fate of Iran's mullahs, their relationship if not the very existence of their Baathist allies in Syria, and the continued existence of Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

    I have a better question for the Pentagon's planners: Why shouldn't Israel bomb Iran's nuclear sites?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    March 10, 2006

    Cowardice at Carolina

    Chancellor James Moeser of UNC-Chapel Hill refused to name last week's attempted mass murder of Carolina students a terrorist act, even though the suspect admitted that perceived affronts to Islam were the motivation for his attack.

    Moeser said of the vehicular assault that intended to kill students in his charge:

    "The fact is, this is not the university's call," Moeser said. "The U.S. attorney will determine whether or not this is an act of terrorism."

    Perhaps the chancellor is waiting for the U.S. Attorney to read this definition of terrorism to him from Dictionary.com:

    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    Mohammed Taheri-azar's "Jeep Jihad" was an unlawful use of force by a person against people with the intention of intimidating and coercing a society he thought was hostile to Islam. He stated in his 911 call, "It was really to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world." Is this nakedly an ideological reason? This was a textbook case of the very definition of terrorism, and yet Chancellor Moeser lacks the fortitude to address this terrorist attack for what it was.

    Instead, he argues:

    "I agree, this could feel like terrorism, especially if you're standing in front of a Jeep that's heading toward you trying to kill you," Moeser said. "As we have investigated this, we've come more and more to the conclusion that this was one individual acting alone in a criminal act."

    Perhaps Moeser would like to pretend that crazed individuals and isolated groups are not capable of terrorism. I'd have him remember Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph or Theodore Kaczynski. Dare he not call them terrorists?

    Or does Moeser object more to the method of the madness? Will only pipe-bombs full of ball bearings or a spray of machine gun bullets meet his lofty threshold of acceptably terrorist behavior?

    Perhaps he is not psychologically equipped to handle the fact that his university was the target of a terrorist act, and so he would like to ignore it and return to business as usual. But ignoring the problem is not the kind of leadership we expect from our flagship university, or it's chief adminstrator.

    Waiting for the permission to state the obvious isn't leadership at all.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    On the Sunken Ports Deal

    David Ignatius hits the nail on the head in his Washington Post editorial:

    Arab radicals will be gloating, admonishing the UAE leaders, "We told you so." But officials here recognize that they're in a common fight with us against al-Qaeda. And unlike some Arab nations, the UAE really is fighting -- reforming its education system to block Islamic zealots and taking public stands with the United States despite terrorist threats. They have created one of the best intelligence services in the Arab world, and their special forces will be fighting quietly alongside the United States in Afghanistan tomorrow, and the day after.

    President Bush tried to do the right thing on the Dubai ports deal, but he got rolled by a runaway Congress. The collapse of the deal was a measure of Bush's political weakness -- but even more, of America's traumatized post-Sept. 11 politics. The ironic fact is that the UAE is precisely the kind of Arab ally the United States needs most now. But that clearly didn't matter to an election-year Congress, which responded to the Dubai deal with a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism. And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like us.

    Congress failed America last night. Try to remember that in November.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:08 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

    March 07, 2006

    Rummy and the Troops

    Funny, how the media is drawn to the fiction, but can't bother itself with the facts.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    A Proxy War No More

    For the second day in a row, ABC News targets Iran with another bombshell allegation (my bold):

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday rejected suggestions Iraq is engulfed in a civil war but predicted there would be additional "bursts" of sectarian violence in the weeks ahead.

    Rumsfeld also claimed that Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements had infiltrated Iraq to cause trouble.

    "They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," he said. "And we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment."

    He would not be more specific except to say the infiltrators were members of the Al Quds Division of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

    We know from yesterday that Iran is supplying Iraqi terrorists with sophisticated SCMs (shaped charge munitions) that can defeat the armor of even our heaviest tanks. It is this kind of charge that was responsible for the deaths of 14 Marines in their Iraqi interpreter last August near Haditha.

    Now we have the Secretary of Defense stating that members of the elite al Quds division—the same unit that deployed elements to Afghanistan to assist the Taliban and roughly analogous to the Green Berets in usage if not quality—are actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq.

    It is quite probable that this has not been a proxy war for some time, but instead a low-level special operations war. One has to wonder how and when the Iranian "error in judgement" will be corrected.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:17 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

    March 06, 2006

    Red-Handed

    Iran may just been caught red-handed shipping high-tech IEDs into Iraq:

    U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

    They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

    What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

    "The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Berry. "So it's the same make and model."

    U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

    "I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

    I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war.

    If these munitions can be tied to the Iranian government—and the article seems to strongly suggest just that—then we have the clear legal and moral justification to disrupt Iran's intentions to wound or kill American soldiers.

    We have been trying to settle our differences with Iran with non-military means, but by their actions, their intent is clear. The mullahs of Iran would wage war upon America, and in doing so, have determined freedom for their enslaved pro-western people sooner, rather than later.

    Update: Cox & Forkum weigh in:


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:46 PM | Comments (74) | TrackBack

    March 03, 2006

    In a Word, Yes.

    The next time you hear John Murtha speaking of withdrawal, the next time your hear Al Gore accusing anyone of playing on our fears, the next time you listen to Cindy Sheehan saying this country is not worth fighting for, remember this:

    So far, 2,298 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives in 1,079 days to liberate 25 million Iraqis.

    Saddam Hussein's Baathists murdered 10,725 men women and children in just one building in Suleimaniya.

    Is this war on terror worth it?

    Only if you have a conscience.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

    March 01, 2006

    Boomer U.

    Jason Smith at Generation Why? has been tracking the Joel Hinrichs suicide bombing incident since the beginning, and passes along new information today. A Norman, OK bomb expert states he does not believe that Hinrichs' death was a suicide as widely reported, but an accidental detonation just 200 yards from a football stadium packed with 80,000 people.

    There seems to be more to this story than meets the eye. Read the whole thing.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Which Iraq?

    Hammorabi fears Iraq is burning, heading for a civil war.

    Omar hears "a big bang," knows he won't be leaving for work, settles
    back on the couch, and quickly becomes riveted by the Saddam Hussein trial.

    Two Iraqis, vastly different concerns.

    American news media takes an almost universal view that Iraq is on the brink of a sectarian civil war. Bill Roggio, an astute analyst of the war who has travelled on the ground in Iraq, states that the main lead indicators a full-scale civil war aren't present.

    Victor David Hanson states (and I agree with him) that the attack on the shrine and the ensuing violence:

    might be a sign of the terrorists' desperation--killers who have not, and cannot, defeat the U.S. military.

    Ralph Peters states unequivocally:

    -- THE reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

    Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

    Which Iraq is real? That seems to hinge on who you think is winning.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    Some Will Not Go Quietly

    In a Europe seemingly paralyzed by fear, a dozen brave souls speak out in this translation in the Indland Jyllands-Posten.

    MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

    After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

    We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

    The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

    Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

    We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

    We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

    We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

    12 signatures

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali
    Chahla Chafiq
    Caroline Fourest
    Bernard-Henri Lévy
    Irshad Manji
    Mehdi Mozaffari
    Maryam Namazie
    Taslima Nasreen
    Salman Rushdie
    Antoine Sfeir
    Philippe Val
    Ibn Warraq

    All freedoms worth having must be fought for to be cherished. Dine-and-dash pacifists who risk nothing, deserve nothing, and very often get exactly that.

    I will not go quietly into submission.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:03 AM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

    February 28, 2006

    Not Quite War

    Scattered, sometimes intense sectarian fighting broke out last week in the wake of the destruction of the Askariya shrine (also known as the Golden Mosque) in Samarra at the hands of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. While the fighting appears to have abated, the Washington Post is now reporting that officials at the main Baghdad morgue put the toll at more than 1,300 dead. This is more than three times previous estimates, and should prove sobering to both those who would brush this off as a minor hurdle already overcome.

    While the loss of life is tragic, the series of skirmishes and ambushes of the past few days in Iraqi are far from the "civil war" many news outlets and pundits were all too eager to declare.

    Civil wars tend to end with catastrophic losses and destroyed cultures after prolonged, drawn-out conflicts. This was decidedly not a civil war, but more than a riot. It was a "not quite" war where the best planning of al Qaeda and the most emotionally charged of targets failed to ignite an escalating conflagration that would spiral out of control.

    Instead, al Qaeda is faced with the Golden Mosque strike that was a tactical success, which may yet turn into a strategic defeat. Terrorists succeeded in initiating a short-term sectarian struggle that while intense, lasted mere days.

    The conflict ended with Sunni and Kurdish leaders pledging money and support to rebuild a Shia shrine. It drove politicians together for the good of all their peoples and a shared if not completely agreed-upon future.

    The surprising number of dead may even force the Iraqi government to address the growing concern of religious militias and rogue interior Ministry forces that seem to have been responsible for the bulk of the reprisal killings in Iraq.

    It was not quite war, but close enough to one, hopefully, that it forces sober thought to overcome bluster, and perhaps hard lessons will be learned.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:40 AM | Comments (54) | TrackBack

    February 27, 2006

    Slitting Their Own Throats

    So much for the "civil war" in Iraq the media and American anti-war demonstrators have been all but hoping for:

    Iraq lifted an extraordinary daylight curfew in three governorates on Sunday as the wave of violence that followed Wednesday's destruction of a Shia shrine appeared to ebb outside the capital.

    But the ban on traffic in Baghdad – which last night suffered a mortar attack that killed 15 and wounded at least another 30 people – remained in place. In other sporadic violence on Sunday another seven people died, including two US soldiers.

    The apparent absence of organised reprisals at the weekend, however, suggests that while the destruction of the dome of the al-Askariya shrine and the ensuing wave of Shia attacks on Sunnis has brought the country the closest it has come to sectarian civil war, key religious and political leaders on both sides have this time been both willing and able to de-escalate the crisis.

    The attack on the al-Askariya shrine was probably al Qaeda's last best hope of triggering a sectarian civil war in Iraq. Instead of ripping the nation apart however, it seems to have had the opposite effect, driving the leaders of Iraq's various ethnic groups closer together in a conflict against a common enemy.

    al Qaeda, already growing unpopular with the Sunni tribes that once supported them, can be expected to start falling in greater numbers, as seen in the death of Abu Asma, the Al Qaeda Military Emir of Northern Baghdad three days ago.

    al Qaeda had only a slim chance to prevail in this conflict when it started. Continued strategic and tactical blunders such as these exacerbate their problems.

    Faster, please.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    February 25, 2006

    The War On Reality Continues

    CNN issued this hysteric report late Friday:

    The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

    The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

    The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

    Not surprisingly, the lefty blogs were ready with their vast suppository of knowledge about military operations. You can read what they have to excrete via memeorandum.

    A representative sample is provided by Daily Kos diarist Susan G:

    So much for fearless leader's repeated recounting of how great that training of Iraqi forces is going...

    Funny, just last month, Bush said, "Today, 125 combat battalions are fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead. That's progress."

    What he forgot to tell us in January was that only one of those battalions was capable of fighting without U.S. support.

    And as of today, there are zero.

    Somehow I don't think our troops will be coming home for Christmas ... even Christmas 2008.

    Of course you don't sweetheart. You never miss a chance to try to lose, do you?

    What Susan G. and the rest of the omni-impotent left either isn't bright enough to know (or honest enough to admit) is that this unit is still afield, still fighting terrorists, and still winning even while undergoing what appears to be a major shift.

    CNN provides a hint as to the level of transition:

    Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.

    It is not uncommon in our own military for units to be temporarily downgraded when similar changes in force structure, support, and command are made. In many instances, a recalibration of a unit to this level will not even occur in the field, and so the fact that they had enough faith in the ability of the unit to keep it deployed while undergoing such a transition speaks to its strength and professionalism, not to any real or lasting weaknesses.

    Buried far down in the CNN article is this bit of information that you won't find liberal blogs discussing:

    According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.

    17 Iraqi battalions went up a readiness level, and the media focuses on the top Iraqi unit's ability to affect a battlefield reorganization as if it represents failure instead of a high level of confidence in their abilities.

    I wish the news media could display a level of competence on par with the Iraqi military, but of course, that would be hoping for far too much.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:01 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

    What Did I Step In?

    It must be Bush's poll numbers:

    Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed.

    Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm. Fifteen percent (15%) believe the operating rights are U.S. owned while 46% are not sure.

    From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.

    Bush may very well have had valid questions with his versions of "If not them, who? If not now, when?" when discussing the pending Dubai Ports World deal, but that time is now passed.

    At this point, opportunistic Democrats and some reactionary, uneducated congressional Republicans have painted those who would be more reflective into a corner, creating a situation where a serious, logical discussion of the situation is not longer possible.

    As Joe Gandelman notes:

    Polls reflect perceptions and mood, not necessarily the validity or worth of an issue or policy. If the White House had done better prep with the Congress and public before the news of this deal came out the poll numbers — and controversy — would probably be a bit different.

    Dubai is one of our better Arab allies, and if we can't work with them, it seems to send the message we are unwilling to work with any Arab countries, at least when it directly affects us. Instead of having them literally buy into America, we sell them what our enemies have been whispering the entire time, "See? They will not accept you. Come back to us..."

    I have no stake in Dubai. I know some there have had their hands in terrorism, and I know that some still may. I know they don't recognize Israel, and that bothers me.

    At this point, there aren't a lot of good "outs."

    If Bush stands his ground, then most rest of the Republican Party will break with him to chase the polls in what has become a surprise election year turkey. If Bush backs down, we could lose some of the fragile trust we've tried to develop in Arab countries since 9/11.

    Thanks, Congress.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:15 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

    February 24, 2006

    Blowout

    From the NY Times:

    After a day of violence so raw and so personal, Iraqis woke on Thursday morning to a tense new world in which, it seemed, anything was possible.

    The violence on Wednesday was the closest Iraq had come to civil war, and Iraqis were stunned. In Al Amin, a neighborhood in southeast Baghdad, a Shiite man said he had watched gunmen set a house on fire. It was identified as the residence of Sunni Arab militants, said the man, Abu Abbas, though no one seemed to know for sure who they were.

    "We all were shocked," said Abu Abbas, a vegetable seller, standing near crates of oranges and tomatoes. "We saw it burning. We called the fire department. We didn't know how to behave. Chaos was everywhere."

    Pajamas Media's own Iraq the Model:

    In our neighborhood the Sadr militias seized the local mosque and broadcast Shia religious mourning songs from the mosques loudspeakers. In several other cases, worshippers were turned away by "gunmen in black" who surrounded the closed mosques. Other mosques are encircled by razor-wire to stop anyone from approaching them.

    The sense in the streets and the statements given by some Shia clerics suggest that retaliation attacks are organized and under control and are focusing on mosques frequented by Salafi and Wahabi groups and not those of ordinary Sunnis.

    Looking at the geographic distribution of the attacked mosques, I found they were mostly in areas adjacent to Sadr city forming a line that extends from the New Baghdad district in the southeast to al-Hussayniya in the northeast.

    Two different snapshots remind us that in such fluid events, nothing is certain. Whether triggered by al Qaeda or Iranian proxy al-Sadr who was just too conveniently out of the country for my tastes, the bombing of the 1,200-year-old Askariya shrine ignited a firestorm in Iraq.

    The question on everyone's mind is if it is possible to bring this situation back under control. I strongly suspect that it can and will be brought back under control, because it is not in the interests of the three major groups--Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds--for this situation to devolve into a civil war. The only groups that have something visibly to gain are Zarqawi's al Qaeda, which have sought from the beginning to destabilize the Iraqi government, and Iranian puppets like Muqtada al-Sadr.

    I think that if authorities can bring Shiite reprisal attacks under control within the next few days without too much further damage, then the violence might serve as a wakeup call to the major groups. This attack, if traced back to al Qaeda, could bring a rapid end to the remaining Sunni support for an insurgency that is already at war with itself.

    Blowing up the Askariya shrine might prove to be the equivalent of detonating dynamite to blow out a burning well fire. al Qaeda in Iraq might have just blown out their own flickering flame.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:15 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    February 22, 2006

    Color Blind

    "...not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

    Martin Luther King, August 28, 1963

    "I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port...

    "Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

    George W. Bush February 21, 2006

    George Bush will never be half as eloquent as the late Dr. King, but the sentiment remains the same: judge people by what they do, and not because of cultural stereotypes or the color of their skin.

    The UAE have been an ally to this country, and I think our initial knee-jerk response on this (mine included) was wrong. This may not play well domestically at first, but the rest of the world is watching, and the President is sending the right message.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:05 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

    February 21, 2006

    Israel Guns Down Top Terrorist

    Israel takes out the trash:

    GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israeli forces in the West Bank city of Nablus early Monday shot and killed Islamic Jihad's top commander in the region, the militant group said.

    Lt. Col. Benjamin Shick, an Israeli commander, said his forces caught a group of militants, including Ahmed Abu Sharik, 30, off guard on the second day of a raid in Nablus.

    "We found a group of people we have been seeking for a while and we went for them," he said. "We know every street and alley, where they are and where they hide."

    Military officials said Abu Sharik had been involved in numerous attacks on Israeli soldiers, and he helped plan a recent suicide attack in Tel Aviv. The army also arrested 15 militants overnight throughout the West Bank.

    Interesting thing about 5.56mm NATO. It may not work all that well, but when it does, the bad guys are rarely are set free on appeal...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    February 20, 2006

    Pro-al Qaeda Students Join Coalition Forces For Weapons Testing Internships

    In a bold show of solidarity with coalition forces, hundreds of pro-al Qaeda students have stated they may assist in joint testing of U.S. and Afghani government weapons systems.

    U.S. forces will test their targeting, guidance, and propulsion systems, while the pro-al Qaeda students will test warhead effectiveness.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    February 18, 2006

    Saddam, Unplugged: A WMD Intel Expert Speaks

    The selection below is from an email sent yesterday by a former soldier and defense analyst I've had the good fortune to work with on several stories in the past. These were his reflections on a recent television interview about the recently released "Saddam tapes."

    Background here, here, and of course, here.

    Last night, Bill Tierney was on Hannity and Colmes talking about the Saddam Tapes. I was fascinated as Bill Tierney defended the information he claims to be present on the tapes. How eerily familiar he looked. I realized it was like a mirror for me.

    I saw in him the frustration of knowing that the most significant reasons that President Bush led this nation to war against Iraq were legitimate reasons, yet the “conventional wisdom†is that we were at best wrong, and at worst criminal in that endeavor.

    It looks to me to be the frustration of the vanquished, believing something to be true which was confirmed by your every sense, yet history being re-written round you as all that you believed and know is erased as flawed intelligence. This was obvious to me when he blew up at Alan Colmes telling him he wouldn't let Alan silence him on this issue, showing that Bill, like me is very tired of having to remain silent as idiots who have no first hand experience to the subject constantly define and redefine the issue.

    Yes I recognize his frustration and for that reason I lend his words great credence on this matter. I get you Bill. Bill “knowsâ€.

    He made one bad mistake. He brought his evidence to what would seem to be the P.T. Barnum of our age, John Loftus. More and more it appears this intelligence summit is crumbling. It was a mistake for Mr. Tierney to choose the Loftus intelligence summit to be the vehicle of disclosure. It was a mistake for Mr. Tierney to allow John Loftus to take the tapes to ABC news for translation and reporting, a huge mistake.

    Today, Mr. Tierney is reporting that the tapes were mistranslated and misreported by ABC news. I find this very believable from my experience working with translators with the Iraqi Survey Group.

    How many people did ABC news have translate the material they had? With ISG, it was common practice to have important items reviewed by at least 2 linguists. Usually this was done by a cleared linguist as a reviewer, usually an Arab American with a security clearance. What provisions did ABC take to make sure that what it reported was accurate?

    Often time's nuances are lost on a transcript, such as sarcasm. As soon as I heard the tapes I got what Saddam was saying. According to the ABC news transcript, Saddam said “This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq.†For anyone who has studied Saddam, you get the feeling that what he is really saying is “of course this is our objective, but we are getting our story straight here and now because we have told the world that we have no WMDs and this can never be traced back to us.â€

    Having worked with ISG in the audio and visual department, I was privy to the exact type of information that Tierney has released. The CD he has copied probably came from me or a coworker in my shop. I can not explain the level of frustration that I have had to live with for over a year now.

    The Duelfer report was supposed to tell the story. It didn't, not completely. It is a fine start, but missing key evidence to form conclusions. What Mr. Tierney has in the form of those tapes has nothing to do with the credibility of Mr. Loftus. What is on those tapes has nothing to do with one translator for ABC news.

    For these reasons I urge Mr. Tierney to immediately make the full tapes available to Fox News and disconnect himself from Mr. Loftus. I urge him to go on Hannity and Colmes tonight and show all his cards before no one is paying attention anymore. Wait and see until the full tapes are released and analyzed. Don't give up ground on the creditability of those tapes based on John Loftus. I watched Bill Tierney last night and he “knowsâ€.

    About the Author
    Ray Robison is a Sr. Military Operations Research Analyst with a defense
    contractor at the Aviation and Missile, Research, Development, Engineering
    Command in Huntsville Alabama. His background includes over ten years of
    military service as an officer and enlisted soldier including the Gulf War
    and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with
    the Iraqi Survey Group. He holds a B.S. degree in Biology, Pre-med from the
    University of Tampa and is a graduate of the Combined Arms and Services
    Staff School.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:28 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    February 15, 2006

    Bad and Worst

    The Daily Tar Heel student newspaper at the University of North Carolina has stepped foot into the Cartoon Wars.

    The UNC Muslim Student Association, of course, is having a fit. Not that the image is inaccurate (in my opinion, this cartoon is editorially superior to most of the other cartoons I've seen on the subject, even if the cartoonist hasn't fully developed as an artist), but that the University allowed the cartoon to run.

    It's real simple folks.

    You can live in a country that values freedom of expression and learn to develop tolerance as a result, or you can live in a country without the freedom of intellectual diversity, and deal with stagnant minds and derelict cultures.

    The choice is yours.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:53 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    February 06, 2006

    Iran Requests Holocaust Cartoons

    Via Drudge, this bit of unpleasantness:

    IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. "It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.

    He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

    "The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

    Doesn't everyone enjoy a good Holocaust cartoon?

    And so I came up with one of my own, though it is just a draft so far. What do you think?


    I call it "Azadi Tower, March 2006."

    I can't claim credit for this as an original concept, of course. I think the IDF is much further along working with this same concept.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:49 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

    February 02, 2006

    Goss: Leak Caused "Very Severe" Damage

    Top U.S. intelligence officials confirmed today that national security leaks published by the NY Times (just as reporter James Risen had a book about to be published) dealt a severe blow to the surveillance efforts of several U.S. intelligence agencies to defend America from al Qaeda terrorists.

    From Forbes:

    CIA Director Porter Goss said Thursday that the disclosure of President Bush's eavesdropping-without-warrants program and other once-secret projects had undermined U.S. intelligence-gathering abilities.

    "The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said a federal grand jury should be empaneled to determine "who is leaking this information."

    His testimony came after National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, who directs all intelligence activities, strongly defended the program, calling it crucial for protecting the nation against its most menacing threat.

    "This was not about domestic surveillance," Negroponte said.

    [snip]

    "I use the words `very severe' intentionally. And I think the evidence will show that," Goss said.

    He said not only have these revelations made it harder for the CIA to gather information, but they have made intelligence agencies in other countries mistrustful of their U.S. counterparts.

    "I'm stunned to the quick when I get questions from my professional counterparts saying, `Mr. Goss, can't you Americans keep a secret?'" he said.

    Goss cited a "disruption to our plans, things that we have under way." Some CIA sources and "assets" had been rendered "no longer viable or usable, or less effective by a large degree," he said.

    "I also believe that there has been an erosion of the culture of secrecy and we're trying to reinstall that," Goss said.

    "I've called in the FBI, the Department of Justice. It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information," he said.

    Somehow, I just don't see the left wing blogs jumping all over the Times for putting the nation in danger, as they seem to share the notion that any damage to national security was merely collateral damage in what they view as a legitimate attempt to destroy their real enemy, President George W. Bush.

    "Loyal opposition," my ass.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:35 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    Bare Hooks

    The longer it goes on, the more pathetic terrorist surveillance opponents become:

    The Bush administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Bush's domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing scheduled for next week, administration and Congressional officials said Wednesday.

    The Justice Department is balking at the request so far, administration officials said, arguing that the legal opinions would add little to the public debate because the administration has already laid out its legal defense at length in several public settings.

    But the legality of the program is known to have produced serious concerns within the Justice Department in 2004, at a time when one of the legal opinions was drafted. Democrats say they want to review the internal opinions to assess how legal thinking on the program evolved and whether lawyers in the department saw any concrete limits to the president's powers in fighting terrorism.

    With the committee scheduled to hold the first public hearing on the eavesdropping program on Monday, the Justice Department's stance could provoke another clash between Congress and the executive branch over access to classified internal documents.

    Translation: Now that we're hip deep in this sitation of our own design, we find that we don't really have anything to really justify these hearings, so... a little help, please!

    As more than one person has predicted, the NSA surveillance case has come into a phase where Democrats in Congress (along with a few Republicans) are determined to re-establish where they think that the borders of presidential authority should lie. Apparently, the evidence amassed so far does not bode well for the self-important legislators of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    They've been reduced to casting about madly, hoping that by dumb luck they might hook something of significance. At the very least, they hope to muddy the waters enough so that they can limp out out of this investigation not perceived as small men and women jealously guarding their fiefdoms.

    Regarding the NSA intercept program, the Justice Department issued a 42-page white paper explaining the Administration's legal position in great detail, establishing that the Presidency has always had "inherent constitutional authority" to conduct warrantless investigations of enemy forces to dissuade attacks upon the United States. The document cites case law, the President's inherent Constitutional authority under Article II, an apparent FISA exemption granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and certainly not least, the fact that the FISA Court of Review, in In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002), clearly stated:

    ([A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information... We take for granted that the President does have that authority...").

    It appears that the game was over before it began. The fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee been reduced to such a blatantly weak Hail Mary play reveals just how desperate their hopes for a face-saving gesture have become.

    But don't worry, Senators. At least when all this is over you won't face the prospect of Justice Department espionage investigations like your friends at the NY Times.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    February 01, 2006

    Fry Daddy


    AC-130 "Fry Daddy" (conceptual rendering)

    (h/t Austin Bay)

    al Qaeda better hope Coppertone comes out with SPF 4,000,000, or they are going to be in for a whole new world of hurt:

    The U.S. military has been developing a gunship that could literally obliterate enemy ground targets with a laser beam.

    The military plans to test the Advanced Tactical Laser, a laser weapon mounted on a C-130H air transport that could destroy any weapon system without collateral damage.

    The laser could have tremendous repercussions on the battlefield, particularly in urban warfare in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. "It's the kind of tool that could bring about victory within minutes," an official said.

    The applications of ATL could change military dynamics on the battlefield. Officials envision the laser being able to destroy or damage targets in an urban area with virtually no collateral damage.

    A very nice weapon indeed, except for those targeted. I would like to know just how effective the radius of the weapon is, however, and how the heat effects of such a system might work.

    While it is rather obvious how this weapon would affect, say, a Shahab-3 missile (developed, appropriately enough, from the North Korean No-Dong missile, which, while obviously accurate when considering the source, is a name I did not make up), it is not so clear how well a weapon of this type would affect a concrete bunker or mud brick structure.

    Would such a laser provide enough immediate heat damage to cause the entire structure to violently fail, thus incapacitating or killing all enemies within, or would it it simple burn through in a restricted beam, perhaps slicing through Omar but leaving Abdul free to to operate an IED? Is it able to burn through such heat resistant structures at all?

    I reserve the right to be absolutely wrong, but it seems to me that a weapons system that promises "virtually no collateral damage" is a weapons system of reduced lethality useful in only specific, limited circumstances.

    Update: Created and added image.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:03 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    ...and Domestic

    President George W. Bush, in his January 31, 2006 State of the Union Address:

    "In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores."

    A massively outnumbered border patrol agent somewhere on the U.S. Mexican border (original source unknown).

    Mr. President, we cannot retreat within our own borders, because you have done almost nothing in five years in office to protect them. Despite attempts to fight for American security in battles overseas, you are failing the nation's security in a far more fundamental way on the domestic front.

    A nation that fails to control its borders fails in "a fundamental act of sovereignty." United States ex rel Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). President Ronald Reagan is credited with later echoing this sentiment when he stated, "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation."

    President Bush, we do NOT control our borders in any way, shape, or form under your present administration. We suffer an invasion of illegals equivalent to 160 12,500-man military divisions every year under your presidency, and this torrent shows no signs of abating.

    Only 25% of Americans approve of your handling of immigration, Mr. President. You have failed to secure America itself, and that fact is not lost on the American voter.

    As Rep. Tom Tancredo said tonight:

    The President must enforce our immigration laws before we consider any guest worker proposal. Until we bring law and order to our border anarchy, importing more workers into the equation is out of the question.

    In 1986, Congress passed a blanket amnesty on the promise that border security would come later. We all remember the '86 bait-and-switch, and we won't be fooled again. There is no way to determine if we need guest workers, and there is no way to gain control of this broken system until we seal our borders and control our country's interior.

    We expect leadership on this issue, Mr.Bush, both from you and the Republican Congress. If you will not provide this leadership, we will eagerly seek it elsewhere this fall.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:47 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

    January 27, 2006

    The Freedom to be Offended

    Per haps if they didn't act like cattle – Holocaust-denying, occasionally explosive cattle - then an "Annual Stampede Report" wouldn't be necessary:

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations asked for an apology from KFI-AM 640 host Bill Handel, who allegedly made fun of the deaths the same day they happened during a segment he called the "Annual Stampede Report."

    A spokeswoman for KFI, which is owned by Clear Channel Communications, did not immediately return a message left Thursday. Handel's producer, Michelle Kube, also did not return calls for comment. Handel had left work for the day and attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.

    At least 363 pilgrims were killed and hundreds injured in a stampede Jan. 12 in Mecca, where thousands of people were rushing to carry out a symbolic ritual of stoning the devil.

    According to the civil liberties group, Handel imitated the people screaming and then joked that the Muslims at the pilgrimage should use a helicopter to monitor pilgrimage traffic, as is done in Los Angeles with the freeways.

    CAIR, which has alleged ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the ACLU, needs to develop a sense of humor. If they can't, I'm sure Michael Jackson has room of them in his abaya in Bahrain. (If you click the link, Michael is the woman on the left side of the picture).

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:31 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    January 26, 2006

    A Challenge For Defarge

    "Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said in a speech Wednesday. "I think that's our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way." --Hillary Rodham Clinton

    If leading Democrats such as Hillary Clinton truly feel that the executive branch does not currently have the authority to intercept communications between suspected terrorists overseas and their contacts in America, they should do something about it more concrete than merely muttering empty partisan rhetoric.

    I challenge the Queen of Triangles—or any other Democrat, for that matter—to put forward a bill in the Senate to specifically ban the warrantless intercepts conducted as a result of the President's executive order. Alternately, she should in short order present another bill authorizing "a lawful way" of tracking down the terrorists targeted by Bush's executive order that does not offend liberal sensibilities.

    The Senator should put it to a vote for the historical record, if what she says is truly what she feels.

    Quite frankly, I don't think she's capable of that level of leadership.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:17 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

    January 25, 2006

    Did Hayden Discredit Tice?

    A lot of folks have been dwelling on General Michael V. Hayden's address to the National Press Club on Monday, chasing what I believe to be a red herring, and some chasing that elusive fish with great vigor.

    To me, this was a far more interesting exchange:

    QUESTION: Yes, Wayne Madsen, syndicated columnist. General, how do you explain the fact that there were several rare spectacles of whistleblowers coming forward at NSA, especially after 9/11, something that hasn't really happened in the past, who have complained about violations of FISA and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, which implements the law at the agency?

    GEN. HAYDEN: I talked to the NSA staff on Friday. The NSA inspector general reports to me, as of last Friday, from the inception of this program through last Friday night, not a single employee of the National Security Agency has addressed a concern about this program to the NSA IG. I should also add that no member of the NSA workforce who has been asked to be included in this program has responded to that request with anything except enthusiasm. I don't know what you're talking about.

    This response from Hayden seems to confirm two things.

    1. By not reporting any concerns to the NSA inspector general, any of the NSA whistleblowers claimed by New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau committed felonies. This is nothing new to most. But as Hayden's response indicates that those most directly knowledgeable about this covert program believe deeply in its success, these claims of multiple streams of insider information inside a highly compartmentalized program seem quite suspect.

    One might question just how many sources Risen and Lichtblau actually had, and whether or not these sources had direct access to this program as they claim.

    2. Hayden's phrasing ("has been" being current tense) also leads me to believe that all people directly acquainted with this particular program are still involved with the program.

    The one named NSA whistleblower, Russell Tice, is not currently part of the NSA, after being dismissed for psychological concerns and security violations.

    Taken together, it would seem that the head of the NSA is strongly suggesting, though indirectly, that Russell Tice was never part of this program. That would indeed cast strong doubts about the credibilty of his already suspect claims, as he is a discharged, disgruntled employee.

    Bill Burkett, anyone?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:30 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    January 23, 2006

    Next Event: the 200-Meter Splatter

    Now that Steven Speilberg's moral-equivilence disaster Munich has once more ripped open the wound of Islamofascist terrorists slaughtering Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972, this is not a brilliant idea:

    IRAN put a human shield of 1000 athletes around a key nuclear plant yesterday after Israel indicated it could launch strikes to stop the Islamic state building nuclear weapons.

    While Israel would not necessarily target Iranian athletes, a couple of Iranian welterweight wrestlers aren't exactly what one would consider an effective deterrent to Israeli airpower.

    Luckily for the athletes, the precision GBU-28s carried by Israeli F-15I strike fighters are ground-penetrating bunker busters, and aren't likely to cause many above ground casualties... though I wouldn't want to be the man on the ground to test that theory.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:20 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    January 20, 2006

    What is Short, has Glowing Eyes, and Captures Terrorists?

    A Jawa.

    On March 12th of 2005 (later updated on March 14th) I wrote a post about a series of messages on the jihadi forum alm2sda.net about how to make various weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons, by a poster calling himself ahmed_assalafil. I had first heard about Ahmed's messages from a website that I frequent which monitors jihad forums, Internet Haganah. Included in Ahmed's messages was the claim that the poster had information on how to make a nuclear bomb, along with some rudimentary (and erroneous) instructions on Hydrogen bomb construction. He was seeking help translating the allegedly secret materials into Arabic.

    Head over to The Jawa Report for the rest of the story about how a blogger played a part in convicting Jordanian-born, would-be terrorist Mohammed Radwan Obeid.

    While you're there, make sure to wish Rusty a happy two-year anniversary.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    January 19, 2006

    "New" Osama Tape is Nothing New

    A "new," poor-quality audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden claims in part, according to CNN:

    "We have seen explosions in many European countries. As for similar operations taking place in America, it's only a question of time. They are under way, and you will hear about them soon."

    Unless I have missed something, we have not seen explosions in "many European countries," with the last successful large scale terrorist attacks occurring on July 7, 2005 in London. The last well-publicized attempted attacks occurred exactly two weeks later on July 21, 2005, when three botched subway station bombs and one bus bomb led to no casualties and the capture of all four suspected bombers.

    There have been no successful attacks since then, making the alleged bin Laden threat sound like a pre-recorded sound bite—perhaps the kind of vague, generic sound bite a dying leader might leave to rally the troops after his death.

    While this is perhaps a tape meant to inspire al Qaeda's foot soldiers (or perhaps serves to function as an attack order), the boasting of attacks that either never took place or are far out of date would seem to lend soft credence to the theory that al Qaeda's one-time leader is, as Mercutio said in Romeo & Juliet, "a grave man."

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:13 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Uno - Dos -Tres

    Splash three:

    A Pakistani security official on Thursday said at least three top Al Qaeda operatives were believed killed in a U.S. missile strike last week, including an explosives expert on the U.S. most-wanted list and a close relative of the terror network's No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri...

    he U.S. Justice Department names Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, as an explosives expert and poisons trainer who operated a terrorist training camp at Derunta, near the eastern city of Jalalabad in Afghanistan...

    The official named two other foreigners as suspected killed in the missile strike: Abu Ubaida, whom he said was the main operations chief for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province, which lies opposite Pakistan's Bajur tribal region where Damadola is located; and Abdul Rehman al-Misri, an Egyptian and close relative of al-Zawahri, possibly his son-in-law.

    Their bodies were among those believed to have been taken away Taliban/al Qaeda sympathizers after the strike. I'd rather have them on a slab with a meat thermometer in them to be certain, but I suspect that the reason thy can confirm their deaths is that they left behind a significant amount of DNA, even if their bodies were not recovered.

    Congressman John Murtha, when reached for comment*, declared us defeated and said he was concerned that, "the withdrawal of the Predator drones, the smoking hole on the ground, and the number of dead al Qaeda fighters made it look like victory"...

    Yeah, it kinda does.

    The NY Times has more details.

    *No, not really.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:17 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBack

    January 18, 2006

    Against the ACLU: What You Can Do

    On DebbieSchlussel.com:

    You've no doubt heard that, today, the ACLU--and assorted other enemies of America--filed a lawsuit against the government for NSA "spying" (interesting that there was no such lawsuit when Bill Clinton was doing the same thing--Remember "Echelon" and "Carnivore"?).

    Since the lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, where I practice, I've already been contacted by concerned U.S. citizens who wish to intervene in the case as interested parties (whose interests and welfare are affected by this case) in support of the government's activities. And we may do so. You may feel free to contact me regarding this if you are interested in adding your name.

    Her contact page is here. And yes, I did.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:11 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

    Colin Powell: Iran Hawk

    This is interesting:

    COLIN Powell yesterday warned that Iran was heading down the same path as Iraq had done before the 2003 invasion and could not be trusted to tell the truth about its nuclear programme.

    The former United States secretary of state said he believed Iran posed a serious threat to the rest of the world in the same way that Iraq had done, and he refused to apologise for the action the US took against Saddam Hussein's regime.

    However Mr Powell, who was in Glasgow to address a Jewish group, admitted that the military campaign against Iraq was based on "bad intelligence" and that it was now clear that Saddam had not managed to amass any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

    In an interview with The Scotsman, Mr Powell said it was clear that negotiations with Iran had come to a dead end and efforts now had to concentrate on preventing it taking the same path as Iraq had done.

    Powell does not, however, call for military action... yet.

    Increasingly though, the question seems to be more a question of "when" western allies might push for more severe measures, not "if." A nuclear weapon developed by an apocolptic Islamic cult in Tehran (one so crazy Ayatollah Khomeini wouldn't touch them) is not something that the free world can easily allow, but it will come at a price.

    Our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Coalition nations relatively little compared to what we could face with a military response to Tehran's insistance on developing nuclear weapons.

    In Iraq, we completed the military invasion and more than two years of occupation so far for less military casualties than we expected in the battle for Baghdad alone.

    In Iran, we would face what most agree is a more competent military than what we faced in Iraq, and we would most likely be forced to engage them in full-spectrum warfare, not just an air war.

    While air assets and special forces might launch attacks to shut down known Iranian nuclear sites, our conventional forces based in Iraq would have to prepare to repel possible Iranian overland counterattacks.

    In addition, western naval and Marine forces would be forced to seize control of the Persian Gulf, and the Guld of Oman, particulary the Iranian-controlled islands in the Strait of Hormuz.

    It perhaps then, no accident that the nation's newest and largest aircraft carrier, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan has deployed to the western Pacific, where it could reposition to the Persian Gulf region relatively quickly. We also know that the 122nd Fighter Wing of the Indiana ANG is deploying up to 72 F-16s to "southwest Asia" in their largest deployment since the Berlin Crisis in 1961.

    I hope Iran will back down, becuase I do not desire another middle eastern conflict if it can be avoided. But allowing a genocidal end times cult to possess nuclear weapons is not something the world can allow, even if that cult runs a country.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:14 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

    Terrorists and Smugglers

    Some weak-hearted souls left of the political center have taken issue with this post, in which I stated that the civilians killed in the CIA Predator Hellfire missile strike on a compound in Damadola Pakistan were hardly innocents.

    New information about the strike confirms that the compound destroyed in the attack had been used as a meeting place on more than one occasion by "significant terrorist figures" in the past and that "there were strong indications that was happening again."

    Leftists, simply appalled that several children died, are unlikely to point out the fact that this stronghold belonged to a smuggler of gems and precious stones, not a "jeweler" as some news outlets have reported. Nor are they like to mention that the area was under the control of the militant Mamond tribe and a Taliban stronghold from which al-Zawahiri had married one of his wives.

    Pakistani officials confirm that Egyptian aides of terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri were killed, with conflicting reports of 4-12 terrorist bodies (Ed Morrisey presumes them to be the high value al-Qaeda members) being removed by unnamed people after the strike. In addition, four bodies that could not be readily recovered in the wake of the strike (presumably trapped under the structure) have been identified as terrorists.

    Smugglers, terrorist supporters, and high-ranking terrorists died. I'm sorry about the kids, but I'd call the strike again all the same. Their deaths are regretable, but war often is.

    Update: Make that terrorists, smugglers, and an al Qaeda chemical weapons expert/master bomb builder. (h/t Jim Lynch at Bright & Early)

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:52 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    January 15, 2006

    On A Roll

    Jeff Goldstein, 2mg regimen of Klonopin (clonazepam) aside, is on an absolute tear today.

    I was personally most drawn to They call him al-Flipper, al-Flipper..., which takes a look at a possible attempt by terrorists to mine Huntington Harbor (CA), but as the say, start at the top, and just keep scrolling.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

    The posts of several days ago that al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed in a CIA Predator Hellfire missile strike seems to be incorrect, and the media, particularly anti-American media such as the UK's Guardian, were quick to jump on the fact that 17-18 "civilians," including women and children, died in the "botched" attack.

    But was this truly an attack on civilians, and was it really botched at all?

    In Europe and America, we tend to think of civilians as innocents, but in an area where many of the men in families are fighters loyal to the Taliban, where foreign fighters are interspersed with the local population and none of the combatants wear uniforms, that classification is an artificial construct.

    It is now emerging that such may be the case here.

    Via Fox News, the Associated Press is now reporting that the airstrike had a very good reason to target these specific houses:

    Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader was invited to dinner marking an Islamic holiday at the Pakistani border village struck by a purported CIA airstrike, but he did not show up, intelligence officials said Sunday, as Islamic groups demonstrated across the country in protest of the 17 people killed in the missile strike.

    The two Pakistani officials told The Associated Press that this could explain why Friday's predawn attack missed its apparent target, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Usama bin Laden's top lieutenant.

    Al-Zawahiri sent some aides to the dinner instead and investigators were trying to determine whether they had been in any of the three houses that were destroyed in the missile strike that killed at least 17 people, one of the officials said.

    Terrorists were targeted at these locations by what appears to certainly be human intelligence working in conjunction with aerial surveillance and targeting. Only a human source (or communications monitoring—perhaps by NSA?) would be able to find out that al-Zawahiri was invited to dinner at this home, and it is reasonable for a circling drone or any operators on the ground to surmise that a small ground of armed men arriving at the specified location at the specified time might very well contain their target. This was not a case of an intelligence failure, but a case of one fewer terrorists showing up for dinner.

    Locals, of course, claim that they've never sheltered any Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, which flies in the face of all that is known about a region where the Taliban have been known to operate with the support of the local tribes. Even the left-leaning Guardian seems to refute this claim and support the theory that terrorists may have been in the homes:

    One Pakistani official, speaking anonymously, told The Observer that hours before the strike some unidentified guests had arrived at one home and that some bodies had been removed quickly after the attack. This was denied by villagers.

    The Fox-carried Associated Press article provides more detail:

    Survivors in Damadola denied militants were there, but some news reports quoted unidentified Pakistani officials as saying up to 11 extremists were believed among the dead.

    A senior intelligence official said Sunday that 12 bodies, including seven foreigners, had been taken from the village.

    He said the bodies were reclaimed by other militants, but another Pakistani official told AP on Saturday that some were taken away for DNA tests. A law enforcement official in Washington said the FBI expected to conduct the tests to determine victims' identities, although Pakistan had not yet formally requested them.

    I have no doubt that women and children were killed in this strike, but as information continues to develop, it also seems obvious that the group of terrorists monitored and targeted by the CIA were killed as designed.

    The Pakistanis have every right to officially protest the strike, but it was almost certainly approved by Musharraf with a wink and a nod. Musharraf himself warned his countrymen in the wake of the attack:

    In a speech shown Sunday on state-run Pakistan Television, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf did not address the Damadola strike directly, but he warned his countrymen not to harbor militants, saying it would only increase violence inside Pakistan.

    "If we keep sheltering foreign terrorists here ... our future will not be good. Remember what I say," Musharraf said in the speech, which was made Saturday in the northwestern town of Sawabi.

    It is a shame that women and children died in this attack, but the blame lies squarely on the fact that these families made the decision to invite terrorists into their homes. The villagers have no one to blame but themselves, and should perhaps consider inviting a better class of people to dinner.

    ***

    Note: as a small technical note to the Guardian, the use of flares as reported by some eyewitnesses is inconsistent with the use of the Predator.

    The Predator drone uses an integrated electro-optical, infrared, laser designator and laser illuminator sensor package, enabling it to see in the dark or through haze, smoke and clouds. Flares are neither carried nor needed by the Predator, and would not be used by special forces to designate a target.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:21 PM | Comments (43) | TrackBack

    January 14, 2006

    Sending Ahmadinejad Home

    What a friend we have in Ahmadinejad:

    In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September.

    When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

    The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

    One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.

    The next time a snotty little leftist snorts derisively about religious "fundies" here in the west (and particularly in the United States), I hope he keeps in mind that evangelicals don't have a genocidal desire to trigger a nuclear war to satisfy some hole-bound water-logged anti-Christ.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his apocalyptic sect are so radical that Ayatollah Khomeini refused to associate with them. Is the picture clear enough? We are dealing with fanatics is a position of power never before seen in a nuclear age, and our task is clear.

    Perhaps it can be resolved with an M24, or perhaps it must be resolved with flights of F117s, F15s, and F16s, but history has shown us that you cannot negotiate in this life with one so eager to attain the next.

    It is time to help Ahmadinejad attain his martyrdom. The future of millions depends on it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:39 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    January 13, 2006

    Zawahiri Killed?

    Via MSNBC.com:

    U.S. officials told NBC News on Friday that American airstrikes in Pakistan overnight Thursday were aimed at the No. 2 man in the al-Qaida terror organization — Ayman al-Zawahri.

    One official said intelligence indicated a strong possibility that Zawahri was in the Pakistani village at the time of the airstrike, but there is no confirmation that he was killed.

    Pakistani officials say U.S. aircraft, apparently CIA Predator drones, fired as many as 10 missiles at the residential compound.

    Interestingly enough, a Predator circling overhead was able to capture this image seconds before the missile strike, with subtitles.

    Osama bin Laden hasn't been heard from in over a year, and some sources think he died of kidney failure in mid-December and was buried in Iran. If the DNA squeegeed off surrounding rocks verifies that Zawahiri was killed, who does that leave in charge of al Qaeda?

    Update: Here.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:40 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    Can You Here Me Now? BOOM!

    This bears watching. Via ABC News:

    Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.

    The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.

    [snip]

    In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.

    In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.

    The Midland, Texas, police report dated December 18 and obtained by ABC News states: "Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached)." At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.

    [snip]

    The Midland, Texas, arrest report police also identified the individuals as linked to a terror cell:

    "Evasive responses provided by the subjects, coupled with actions observed by officers at the onset of the contact prompted the notification of local FBI officials to assist in the investigation," the report said. "Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.

    In addition to the uses stated, cell phones such as these tracfones have been used as part of the triggering device of remote control IEDs in Iraq and elsewhere.

    Another blog I came across yesterday (I'm sorry, but I forgot which one [updated: here. -ed.]) noted that there seems to be a pattern of terror attacks or attempted terror attacks following videotaped statements released by al Qaeda's resident cave doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Guess who just released a statement last week?

    Something to think about...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:52 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    January 12, 2006

    Tactical Seppuku

    The NY Times notes more friction in the Iraqi insurgency between local insurgents and those loyal to al Qaeda:

    The discussion dragged on for seven hours, he said, but did not go well. The local insurgents demanded that the foreigners from Al Qaeda leave Iraq.

    "They said, 'Jihad needs its victims,' " Abu Lil said. " 'Iraqis should be willing to pay the price.' "

    "We said, 'It's very expensive.' "

    The meeting ended abruptly, and Abu Lil and his associates walked out, feeling powerless and angry.

    "I wished I had a nuclear bomb to attack them," he said. "We told them, 'You are not Iraqis. Who gave you the power to do this?' "

    Antagonism between factions of the insurgency is nothing new, but local citizens increasingly tire of al Qaeda tactics that have little or no regard for the lives of civilian populations. Attacks upon Sunnis, including many joining the Iraqi military and police forces, have increased the resolve of Iraqis to defeat al Qaeda as a matter of own personal protection.

    What the Times cannot bring itself to say is what al Qaeda in Iraq leader Musab al Zarqawi already knows, which is that al Qaeda cannot win against Iraqis in Iraq, and is merely hoping to delay losing in hopes of a miraculous political victory (a precipitous American withdrawal) as advocated by some Democrats.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    January 11, 2006

    More on Ali Fadhil's Rude Awakening

    The Guardian is elaborating on the story it broke yesterday that award-winning Iraqi journalist Ali Fadhil had his home violently invaded in a raid by U.S. soldiers over the weekend. Fadhil claims:

    It began at half past midnight on Saturday when explosives blew apart the three entrances to my house. We thought we had been caught in a bombing, but then a rifle sneaked round our bedroom door and shot a couple of bullets blindly; suddenly our room was filled with the wild sounds of US soldiers.

    My three-year-old daughter Sarah woke to this nightmare. She pushed herself on to me and shouted "Daddy, Americans! They will take you! No, no, not like this daddy ..." She tried to say something to one of the soldiers but her tears stopped her from speaking. Instead of blaming the soldier I could see she was blaming me. I tried to calm her down but as I did so the soldier threw me on to the ground and tied me.

    They then took me downstairs and made me sit in the living room while they smashed every piece of furniture we have. There were about 20 soldiers inside the house and several others on guard on the roof. A blue-eyed captain came to me holding my Handycam camcorder and questioned me aggressively: "Can you explain to me why you have this footage?"

    The details of the raid, which I blogged about here yesterday, are very disturbing if true.

    U.S forces should have better training and fire discipline than to blindly start shooting around corners in civilian households. American soldiers should have better discipline than to randomly smash all of the Fadhil family's furniture in a random, spiteful manner. If there is any credence to this story at all, then there should be a through investigation by the authorities.

    But is there credibility in Fadhil's story? That is turning out to be an intriguing question.

    As I stated yesterday, random "spray and pray" gunfire is not part of any military room clearing training of which I've ever heard. It is extremely counterproductive, as rifle fire in the confines of a dwelling is as potentially dangerous to the shooter's entry team and the shooter himself as it is to any potential hostiles.

    Likewise, random, purposeful violence against civilians and their property is at odds with American goals in Iraq. I find it hard to believe that any American officer or senior NCOs would allow the destruction Fadhil alleges occurred in his home at the hands of American soldiers.

    For that matter, I find it hard to believe that "a small room, two metres [sic] square, with wooden walls, a refrigerator and an oval table in the middle" could also have enough room for three adult males. All this in a 6'x6' room? Again Fadhil's story seems suspect.

    But this story is also easily verified, at least in part.

    Gunfire--even just a couple of bullets fired "blindly" as Fadhil alleges-- leaves copious physical evidence behind. Anyone familiar with the various "CSI" television shows know that bullets make hole in what they hit, and that bullets shatter on hard targets, leaving identifiable fragments. They also leave cartridge casings, and even an untrained eye can tell the difference between the 7.62x39mm round used by Iraqi forces and the 5.56x45mm cartridge favored by American forces.

    I sincerely hope that Ali Fadhil would not would not manufacture or embellish a story in the hopes of ginning up interest in a Guardian films project he is developing for Channel 4, but at this point, with so many inconsistencies in his story, I'd have to say that anything at all is possible.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:35 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    January 07, 2006

    Thick-Headedness Does Not Count As Armor

    I relish when pundits try make profound judgments about a subject they clearly do not understand, like this - yeah, I know - NY Times article that breathlessly states:

    A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

    The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

    Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.

    Liberal blog Newshog certainly thinks this is today's Crime of the Century, running the headline Rumsfeld and Armor - Criminal Negligence Or Treason? Smelling a choice to score cynical political points, there has been much faux concern for our troops (from the same one liberals have called Marines murderers and war criminals for 40 years, of course) by loopy Kos diarists and the always amusing Pam's House Blend among others, who don't know what they are talking about any more than did the writer at the Times who cobbled this shoddy article together in the first place.

    Lets look at some facts, shall we?

    Interceptor armor is relatively new, first being deployed in 1999 as a two-part system, made up of a flexible tactical vest and armor plate inserts. The vest itself is a tactical weave that will stop much shrapnel and pistol bullets up to 9mm on its own, but it will not stop any rifle bullet, nor some shrapnel. The second component of the Interceptor system is a hard 10"x12" ceramic armor plate known as Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPIs) that can withstand multiple strikes from most, but no all rifle cartridges encountered on the modern battlefield.

    The Interceptor system used by the Marines (details here) is a marked improvement over the previous PASGT vest, and is available in five sizes. The upgraded version of the Interceptor, which started being deployed in March of 2005, increased the protection with the addition of some side and upper arm protection and can be viewed here (PDF).

    But the careful construction of the report defies logic and objectivity.

    By design, the Times article shows an inaccurate picture of the Interceptor system provided to the Marines, based upon a false premise. This study only looked at fatalities, those Marines killed by upper body wounds while wearing vests. It excluded all the times where Interceptor vests worked as designed and the Marine survived.

    This is akin to judging automobile safety by looking at only wrecks resulting in fatalities, as oppose to those wrecks where fatalities were prevented by good automotive design.

    Reporters and clueless critics will not doubt be outraged decades from now when body armor of the day yields similar results against plasma rifles or other military technologies of that time.

    There has always been and will always be an arms race between those developing armor and those designing weapons to defeat that armor. It has been that way for tens of thousands of years. It will be this way for the foreseeable future.

    It would be smart for these “experts†to pull their heads out of their crawlspaces long enough to glance at a history book before they make fools of themselves yet again.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:52 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

    January 06, 2006

    Courage to Stand

    Via the Washington Post:

    The residents of Ramadi had had enough. As they frantically searched the city's hospital for relatives killed and wounded in bomb blasts at a police recruiting station Thursday, they did something they had never publicly done: They blamed al Qaeda in Iraq, the insurgent movement led by Abu Musab Zarqawi.

    "Neither the Americans nor the Shiites have any benefit in doing this. It is Zarqawi," said Khalid Saadi, 42, who came to the hospital looking for his brother, Muhammed.

    Muhammed, it was later determined, was one of 80 police recruits killed by the terrorist attack on a recruiting line of 1,000 Sunni police force applicants in a town that had formerly assisted, sometimes actively, al Qaeda terrorists.

    But that is not the entire story of yesterday's suicide bombing in Ramadi.

    After the attack, the prospective recruits returned to the blood-stained streets, reformed their lines, and continued the screening process to become police officers.

    The media breathlessly covers the moment-to-moment carnage of the day. They cannot understand, nor provide context to, the courage of a growing, increasingly tough anti-insurgency movement in Iraq. It is one thing to talk tough, but another thing entirely to stand for your beliefs.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:41 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    January 05, 2006

    The Problem of Parenting Pancakes

    This is simply too surreal (via Captain Ed):

    PALESTINIAN society disintegrated further yesterday as gunmen from the ruling Fatah movement tried to kidnap the parents of an American activist who died trying to halt the demolition of Gaza homes, while other militants destroyed part of Gaza's border wall with Egypt - killing two guards...

    ...Yesterday's rampages began at about 2am, when six gunmen, angered over al-Hams's arrest, attempted to abduct charity workers Craig and Cindy Corrie, whose daughter Rachel was killed three years ago by an Israeli bulldozer.

    Rachel Corrie AKA Saint Pancake, for those of you unexposed to her before, was an idealistic, clueless, and quite possibly accidental American terrorist supporter accidentally killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to protect a home covering the opening to a Palestinian weapons-smuggling tunnel.


    Rachel Corrie burns a hand-drawn American flag

    What. Freaking. Idiots.

    As Captain Ed says, the most destructive thing Israel ever did to the Palestinians was set them free to murder and rob themselves into oblivion. That they would attack their own allies (Egyptians and/or the Corries, take your pick), just shows them even more incapable of governing themselves than we ever thought possible.

    I wonder if the idealistic Corrie family will wise up before they, too, are killed for a Palestinian state that is nothing less than a self-perpetuating wasteland.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    January 04, 2006

    Goodnight, Ahmadinejad

    Iran is trying to die:

    Iran is secretly trying to obtain technology and expertise needed to build a nuclear weapon, according to a leaked intelligence report that threatens to deepen a rift with the West over its nuclear programme...

    The report concludes that scientists in Tehran are shopping for parts for a new ballistic missile with "import requests and acquisitions ... registered almost daily", the Guardian said.

    And die quickly (h/t Ace):

    The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that there will be no dialogue with Europe because it is a waste of time. This point was underlined by the Iranian leader during his first appearance in front of the committee of foreign affairs and national security of the mullah-run majlis.

    "The president, defined the attempts by the governments of the past 16 years to bring to the table a dialogue with Europe and to try and reduce tensions, as a waste of time which has so far not produced any tangible results for our country."

    Playing a dangerous game with very little skill, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is all but assuring that he will be the final President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sometime between now and mid-March, air and special forces from at least one nation and possibility more will likely launch a series of debilitating strikes from which the current radical Islamic regime in Iran will not be allowed to emerge. Any U.S. involvement will not be content to only blunt Tehran's nuclear ambitions, it will, by necessity, seek to topple them from power.

    Some worry that an assault on Iran will result in Iran engaging in cross-border attacks into Iraq. These fears are probably warrantless. Decapitation strikes to destabilize the Iranian government and cripple command and control capability will likely result in Iranian forces either holding their positions, or deploying to try to prop up the current regime against an expected internal uprising.

    Even an attack order is not likely to initial much more than a few isolated, grossly-overmatched air-to-ground battles that would result in something akin to the 1991 Gulf War's Highway of Death or 1944 Normandy's Todesgang "Death Road" of the Falaise Gap. While Iran boasts an army of 350,000 men, 200,000 are poorly-trained conscripts, and most of their frontline equipment is of questionable repair or is obsolete.

    I would not be surprised at all to find Iran under a transition to democratic government by March 13, 2006, with a correlating decline to follow in insurgent activity in Iraq.

    I also suspect MoveOn.Org will start a "No Blood for Persian Carpets" campaign that will not resonate with middle America, and Bush's approval rating as a result of these strikes will pass 60%.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:56 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

    December 27, 2005

    Thunder Over Iran

    David Bernstein notes over at The Volokh Conspiracy that there is distinct possibility that Israel will strike Iran within the next few months in an effort to disrupt or destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions. As Bernstein himself notes, "this is hardly an original insight."

    The Iranians certainly know this, which is why they've entered into a deal to buy 29 TOR-M1 mobile air defense missile systems (another source strongly suggests that the actual number is actually 32 TOR-M1 systems, or the equivalent of two regiments).

    Despite the deployment of these new systems however, Israel will not only probably engage Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with the international community falter, they will likely succeed.

    Despite the commentary of some "experts," to the contrary, the Israeli Air Force has significant deep strike capability. According to Global Security, the IAF currently has 25 advanced multi-role F-15I "Ra'am" (Thunder) strike fighters, a custom built Israeli variant of the American F-15E Strike Eagle that can carry the 5,000 pound GBU-28 "Bunker Buster" capable of penetrating 20 feet of concrete or more than 100 feet of earth. Congress was alerted to the possible sale of 100 GBU-28s and supporting equipment in in April of 2005, and did not object, making it reasonable to conclude that the IAF probably has both the strike aircraft and the weaponry to take out the most heavily-fortified of Iranian facilities.


    IAF F-16I "Soufa" (Storm)

    In addition to the deep strike/deep penetration capability of GBU-28-armed F-15Is, the IAF also has "nearly 50" of the highly advanced F16I "Soufa" (Storm) two-seat, long-range interdictors most recognizable for two conformal fuel tanks mounted on the upper fuselage as seen in the image above. These F-16Is are equipped with long-range AMRAAM and short range Python 5 imaging infrared-guided high agility dogfighting missiles in an air-to-air role, or a mix of HARM anti-radiation missiles, Maverick air-to ground missiles, and a large variety of unguided and guided bombs

    If Israel opts for a aerial assault, these roughly 75 planes should be more than a match for any air defenses Iran can project. Iranian airpower has suffered significantly since the shah's regime in the 1970s, and land-based radar and SAM capabilities are probably insufficient to the task of defending against modern strike packages.

    If Israel opts for an early March strike as some sources suggest, we will know both Israel's and Iran's capabilities in very short order.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:45 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

    December 14, 2005

    Into a New Dawn

    As the sun comes up over Mesopotamia this morning, an estimated fifteen million Iraqi voters will their select their own government and decide their own futures by ballot for the first time in history.

    Pajamas Media, led by Iraq the Model will be providing first-hand, on-the ground coverage from eight Iraqi provinces.

    As somebody said in the last couple of years, "Freedom is on the march."

    And no, he wasn't a Democrat.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Iran Bungles Bid to Sabotage Iraqi Election

    Update: Lieutenant General Ahmed al-Khafaji, the head of the Iraqi border police, denies that trucks carrying ballots were seized, noting that Iraq's borders have been closed in advance of the elections. The single-source NY Times article appears to be false.More here.

    A truck carrying forged ballots have been caught trying to sneak across the Iranian border into Iraq on the eve of Iraqi elections.

    Via the NY Times:

    Less than two days before nationwide elections, the Iraqi border police seized a tanker on Tuesday that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots, an official at the Interior Ministry said.

    The tanker was seized in the evening by agents with the American-trained border protection force at the Iraqi town of Badra, after crossing at Munthirya on the Iraqi border, the official said. According to the Iraqi official, the border police found several thousand partly completed ballots inside.

    The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Iranian truck driver told the police under interrogation that at least three other trucks filled with ballots had crossed from Iran at different spots along the border.

    As the Times notes later in the article, the Iranians support two main Shiite political parties in Iraq - the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa Party.


    An Iraqi soldier gives the 'V' sign before voting in the national election, at Kirkush Military Training Base, northeast of Baghdad, December 12, 2005 Reuters

    But it seems highly suspect that these forged ballots were actually intended to influence the outcome of the election. Kurd Sunni, and Shiite alike are very much influenced by clan and community loyalties, and large swings in voting in voting patterns would almost certainly be noted.

    It seems for more likely that these ballots were intended to undermine the credibility of the Iraqi election in the eyes of international observers than influence its eventual outcome.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    December 13, 2005

    All Lathered Up with Nowhere to Go

    It is fascinating to sometimes simply watch liberal bloggers in their "reality-based" environment, and how they reflexively strike out against anyone who would change the fragile balance of their self-imposed isolation, even if that change is minimal.

    The absolutely incoherent frothing by many in response to this post Sunday by Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell is an excellent case in point.

    Howell noted that the Washington Post newspaper and Washington Post.com (Washington Post-Newsweek Interactive, or WPNI) are two separate entities, and that White House reporters from the Washington Post are against WPNI writer Dan Froomkin's column being titled “White House Briefing†when he is not, in fact, a White House Reporter.

    Howell writes:

    Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal. They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.

    John Harris, national political editor at the print Post, said, "The title invites confusion. It dilutes our only asset -- our credibility" as objective news reporters. Froomkin writes the kind of column "that we would never allow a White House reporter to write. I wish it could be done with a different title and display."

    Harris is right; some readers do think Froomkin is a White House reporter. But Froomkin works only for the Web site and is very popular -- and Brady is not going to fool with that, though he is considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger.

    Howell and Harris are of course correct. A columnist should never be confused with a reporter. By blurring that line, Froomkin's opinion column was intruding on the credibility of the Post's print journalists. Changing his column's name and recognizing the fact that his bias is left of center should not even be an issue. Adding a complementary conservative blogger to balance out WPNI's political blog coverage would seem to be an entirely justifiable move.

    Yet liberal readers and bloggers created such a tempest in a teacup that Harris felt the need to clarify the Post's position once more:

    …there is not really a debate: washingtonpost.com should change the name of his column to more accurately present the fact that this is Dan Froomkin's take on the news, not the observations of someone who is assigned by the paper to cover the news.

    People in the newsroom want to end this confusion…

    In his comments, Dan pleads with reporters to stop complaining about him and start doing more to hold the White House accountable. The reporters on the Post's White House and political teams every day push through many obstacles and frustrations to do precisely this kind of accountability reporting--as I'm sure Dan would agree. But these are the very same reporters who are raising objections to "White House Briefing." The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work.

    Reporters should report the facts of the story as best they can, and columnists are free to state their opinion about what those facts mean. It seems to be a simple enough division to separate facts from opinion, but the left-side of the blogosphere is getting riled up all the same, including some people that should know better.

    The usually sharp Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine completely misses the boat:

    What a terrible insult and slap at a colleague who writes a very good, respected, and journalistic column for online. What a slap from a newsroom snot. But that is what newsrooms are like.

    Jarvis is wrestling with a strawman, and losing; the argument isn't about whether or not print or online is better, it is about separating reporting from commentary. As off-focus as Jarvis is in this post, his commentary is still far more coherent than most of the liberal blogs.

    Lean Left is absolutely hysteric, announcing in its headline "The Defeat of Journalism." For renaming a column? Hyperbole, much? The Huffington Post is no better, with Marty Kaplan trying to justify the blurring of Froomkin's commentary as journalism, and perhaps predictably, blames Fox News (and Karl Rove?) in the process.

    Why is the left fighting so hard to keep the title of Froomkin's column as "White House Briefing" if deception isn't their intention?

    One might start to think that among the "reality-challenged" community, a little stolen credibility is better than none at all.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:41 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    Shamus MacHussein: Your Cover Just Got Blown

    Okay, I love the fact that these Iraqi soldiers are so jazzed about voting that they spontaneously break out with a chorus line.

    But I've gotta think that the guy spying for Scotland might have blown his cover...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    December 12, 2005

    Call it: "Springtime for Mrs. Hitler"

    It seems that Mother Sheehan is now the subject of a one-woman play. Via al-Reuters:

    U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.

    "Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.

    The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.

    "Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.

    But did they quote you accurately, Cindy?

    Are we going to get this gem?

    "You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."

    Are they going to take the show on the road? This ought to go over great in the USO tour:

    "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy."

    And I certainly hope that Dario Fo worked in the part where you were an opening act for a convicted terrorist supporter.

    Somehow, Cindy, I just don't think they're painting a full, accurate picture of what you really represent.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:42 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    December 11, 2005

    An Urgent Christmas Mission

    I just got this in from Marine Corps Moms:

    Please forgive the mass e-mail. I've never done it before but this is for our deployed troops. For the last 3 months, volunteers all over the country are making sure that our Marines receive a touch of home for Christmas. We've sent over 12,000 hand sewn Christmas stockings filled with food, games, socks, handwarmers, and other useful items. In addition, we've sent boxes filled with candy, beefsticks, cheese, DVDs, board games, and other things for the guys to share. For troops stationed on the Syrian border and who have been eating MREs for 7 months, we sent pancake mix, syrup and griddles, so that the Battalion Commanders could throw a pancake feed for their Marines. Little things, compared to what they're doing for us. We have no corporate sponsors and we are funded through the donations of parents and military supporters.

    On Friday, I got an emergency request from an Army contact who has been in contact with the 1107th AVCRAD, a company of 250 soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their MWR dollars didn't come through and they are facing a bleak holiday. If I priority mail packages tomorrow, there is a high probability that they will get them by Christmas. I've received $500 in funding from a couple of parents, and that might be enough to mail part of the packages. But, I still need to buy the stuff to put in the packages. While I won't have individual Christmas stockings, I do have holiday decorated Ziploc baggies and am trying to fill 250 today. If you could put out an appeal to your readers to help fund this final request, it would be so appreciated. If folks want a tax deduction, they can hit the Paypal button at the Marine Corps Family Foundation site: http://www.marinecorpsfamilyfoundation.org/santa.html

    If they don't need a receipt, they can use the Paypal button on my site: Marine Corps Moms. Those funds would be immediately available to me instead of waiting. (Connie holds the checkbook for our foundation and she's out of town until next week.) I've been using my own money, thinking that I can fundraise later, but I think filling this request is going to exceed what I can do personally. Each of you have readerships on your websites that I will never achieve. If you could link to the following post on my site:

    http://marinecorpsmoms.com/archives/2005/12/last_minute_ope.html

    or just mention it on your site, I would so appreciate it. And, I'll let you know how it turns out.

    Deb Conrad
    Proud Marine Mom
    www.marinecorpsmoms.com

    Help Deb out if you can, folks. They're not only taking care of our Marines, their taking care of our soldiers, too.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Gone Broke

    According to Drudge:

    Today, Senator Daniel Inouye, the Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and a recipient of the Medal of Honor for his service in World War II, released the following statement:

    "As a Veteran of World War II, I know what it's like to fight a war and put your life on the line every day. I also know what it takes to win a war, and I know that politics and an attack machine like the President's plays no part in it.

    "The Republican Party's latest ad is a shameful and disgusting attempt to distract the American people from the problems in Iraq. It may improve the President's political fortunes, but the American people and our troops will pay the price. I hope that President Bush realizes how shameful it is to play politics when what we really need is leadership, and that he will direct his Party to take down this ad immediately."

    Senator Inouye was once part of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the most decorated unit in United States military history.

    According to his Medal Of Honor Citation:

    Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on 21 April 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy. While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force. Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

    The fearless 20 year-old 2nd Lieutenant Inouye refused to stop, refused to even think about yielding even when under withering fire. Instead he attacked, and even when wounded twice he continued the fight until the day was won.

    2nd Lieutenant Inouye knew how to win wars, Senator.

    You win wars by killing your enemy or driving the fight out of him, which is something he knew on an Italian ridge 60 years ago when facing the best Hitler had to throw at him. The side that breaks, loses.

    Democratic Party courage, by comparison, offers nothing but disgrace and retreat. Your party doesn't know how to win, Senator Inouye. You haven't known how for a long, long time.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

    December 09, 2005

    Captain Meltdown Stars in a Neocop Production of "Howard the Schmuck"

    Howard Dean has just become the new posterboy for the... Republican Party?

    Via Drudge:

    The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from a top GOP operative that the Republican National Committee will provide state parties with a web video prior to release tomorrow afternoon that shows a white flag waving over images of Democrat leaders making anti-war remarks.

    The ad is in response to the controversial comments Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry made earlier in the week.

    A Democratic strategist who had the web ad described to her said, "This is way over the top but we have no one to blame but Dean, Kerry and others who continue to pander to the anti-war activists within our party."

    I could forgive the Democratic leadership--if you want to call it that--for being anti-war, if being against the war that was truly their case.

    But it isn't.

    The neo-copperheads do not care about the American military or the 27 million Iraqi people they would abandon with their soft bigotry, and in many cases, they have nothing but disdain for the men and women who guard their freedoms and the freedom of others.

    These "neocops" have one over-riding goal: to defeat George Bush and the Republican Party, no matter what it takes, or who has to die. The want badly to lose Iraq in the hopes that they can score political points from the blood of the Iraqi people and the Democrat-driven defeat of American servicemen.

    The defeatists deserve defeat, and any hell they have unleashed on their ignoble souls.

    Update: The video can be downloaded here (WMV).

    December 07, 2005

    Don't Run, You'll Only Die Tired

    Jean Charles de Menezes ran from London police that suspected he was a suicide bomber and was gunned down on July 22nd. Today in Miami International Airport, Rigoberto Alpizar was shot by a U.S. air marshall after he claimed to have a bomb and then reached into his carry-on bag.

    Folks, just a friendly bit of advice... when a cop slips his finger inside the triggerguard, it is a very good time to listen.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    December 06, 2005

    This is Terrorism

    Gang rape in front of your family? Annoying.

    Husband fed into woodchipper? Exasperating.

    No clean underwear? Terrorism.

    Saddam Hussein told the judge overseeing his trial in Iraq to "go to hell" Tuesday and threatened not to return to an "unjust court" when it reconvenes on Wednesday.

    After five witnesses gave horrific testimony of torture allegedly overseen by Saddam -- there are two more witnesses to hear from this week before the Dec. 15 election in Iraq -- court was preparing to adjourn for the day when the deposed dictator jumped to his feet and complained that the court was "deliberately hauling defendants before the trial when they are exhausted."

    He complained that he had no fresh clothes, and that he had been deprived of shower and exercise facilities.

    "This is terrorism," he said.

    I'm sure Howard Dean agrees...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    December 05, 2005

    Captain Meltdown Rides Again

    WOAI (via Drudge):

    Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

    And they're gonna lose in New Hampshire and South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico! They're going to lose in California and Texas and New York! They'll lose in South Dakota and Oregon! They'll lose in Washington and Michigan!

    YEEEAARRGGHH!!!

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    December 03, 2005

    Team Infidel Shoots... And Scores!

    al Qaeda #3 (behind al Zawahiri and bin Laden) Hamza Rabia has just experienced Hellfire.

    Literally:

    The operational commander of al-Qaida and possibly the No. 3 official in the terrorist organization, Hamza Rabia, was killed early Thursday morning by a CIA missile attack on a safehouse in Pakistan, officials told NBC News.

    Pakistan's president later confirmed the militant leader's death.

    Chalk up another one up for the Predator/Hellfire UAV/missile combination.

    If Osama bin Laden is possibly dead as a certain senator opined, then Ayman al Zawahiri is the last man standing in senior al Qaeda leadership from the 9/11 era.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:20 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    Final Landings, First Flights

    Two very different stories emerged December 2nd from part of the Iraqi military that most Americans don't even know exists -- The Iraqi Air Force.

    The Chicago Tribune released a story about an Iraqi Air Force pilot that made history this past August, as Capt. Ali Hussam Abass became the first Iraqi service member honored with a hero's burial at Arlingon National Cemetery.

    Abass saved the life of an American pilot after an emergency landing May 10, and was killed 20 days later a crash on May 30. His remains shared a crypt along with four American airmen that died with him.

    He is one of only 63 foreign nationals interred In Arlington.


    Baghdad International Airport, Iraq -- An Iraqi C-130E arrives here at New Al Muthana. It was the first solo mission flown by an all Iraqi aircrew.
    (U.S. Air Force photo)

    Back in Iraq, an all-Iraqi nine-man crew from the 23rd Iraqi Squadron flew a solo mission aboard a C-130E from Ali Air Base to New Al Muthana Nov. 28, it was released. It was the first flight of an all-Iraqi crewed plane in the new Iraqi Air Force.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    December 02, 2005

    Terrorist Activism By The Numbers

    Four "peace activists" got pinched by terrorists, and are now said to be threatened with death. Good thing we've got a Blockbuster nearby, 'cause I already know the script for this one.

    The same "peace activists" belong to a group that only became interested in Iraq about the time they discovered America was interested in readjusting the government. Interesting, isn't it?

    As Steve H. notes:

    Why didn't they protest Hussein's millions of atrocities, which were committed openly and as a matter of policy? Why are minor American sins worth protesting, when huge, egregious, Hitler-scale Iraqi sins don't even justify a press conference?

    Answer: because peace isn't what these people are about.

    He's right. That is why these "peace activists" are in no danger at all.

    They've managed to make themselves public relations bargaining chips as they always intended. Their terrorist captors will make little movie, enjoy their moment in the sun, and make an outrageous demand or two that we will in no way be able to think about honoring, like asking all captured terrorists to be let go.

    After a length of time, the activist's terrorist friends will let them go without so much as a scratch, just to show just how compassionate they truly are.

    Congratulations, Christian Peacemaker Teams.

    You've managed to get the attention you've always wanted.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:11 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    RE: "Living Hand to Mouth"

    Dear Congressman Murtha,

    I would like to comment upon the horrors inflicted upon our Marines in the field in Iraq. It is just as you said, our military is truly living hand to mouth.

    According to one of my readers who has just received email from a cousin in Iraq, just last week at Thanksgiving at Camp Corregidor in Al Anbar province outside of Ramadi, our soldiers were barely getting by with steaks, crab legs, lobster, turkey, pie and ice cream. Horror of all horrors (and this is a direct quote), it was "all frozen stuff that loses something in translation."

    Truly, these are deplorable conditions. He literally did have to eat those crab legs "hand to mouth."

    Also, soldiers have griped about the low stopping power of some of our weapons, which seem to be stymied by even the simplest concrete block construction, and we're reverting n part to early Vietnam-era and earlier firearms for some missions. Got any idea who on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee could have screwed that up?

    Thanks.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:24 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    December 01, 2005

    Rise of the NeoCop

    I'm trying to formulate a "benefit of the doubt" defense for John Murtha's latest incredible statements that the U.S. military is "Broken, worn out," and "living hand to mouth."

    I am failing miserably, as there seems to be only a handful of options to explain his behavior, and few of them are kind.

    The first opinion is that Murtha is correct, that the military is falling apart. This statement is very hard to defend, as soldiers are re-enlisting at greater rates than targeted, and are optimistic about chances for success in Iraq.

    The second option, highlighted by Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, is that Murtha is one of a group of Democrats that has fallen prey to a sort of "insane calculus":

    —which is the position of the Democratic leadership, at least in the House—argues, in essence, that going to war puts a strain on our troops, and that protecting ourselves is impossible if our troops are stretched thin from protecting us.

    In other words, Murtha's unhinged defense is that the Army shouldn't be used to fight, because we might need them for war.

    Another option highlighted by lawhawk at A Blog For All, is that of his own incompetence:

    unless the Constitution of the US has been changed lately (and it hasn't), it's Congress' job to make sure that the Army is properly funded to provide for the common Defense (Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 1 and Clause 12). So, if there is a problem, it's up to Murtha and his colleagues in Congress to make sure that the military is properly funded so that it has the proper levels of equipment and supplies.

    Congressman Murtha, ranking member and former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is admitting his gross incompetence.

    Or perhaps there is another factor in play entirely.

    Murtha is emerging as one of several Vallandigham pretenders in the modern Democratic Party, willing to undercut the nation because they lack to fortitude to finish a difficult and necessary task. For them, failure is a constant, a mark on their characters they would sear onto the soul of a nation.

    In the 1860s a group of defeatist Democrats were willing to sell the Union and the God-given rights of men away because they felt that the cost of war with the Confederacy was too high, that states rights had been abused, that racial equality was being unfairly forced upon the states of Confederacy. The traitorous Peace Democrats proudly referred to themselves as Copperheads.

    Today's neo-Copperhead (NeoCop) Peace Democrats feel another war is not worth the price we've paid to secure basic human rights. Certainly, the ethnicity of the downtrodden has changed--Arab for African--but the message of racial indifference remains shockingly the same.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:35 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    Syria a "Source of Evil" For Iraq

    While President Bush made his case from winning the War in Iraq in an Annapolis speech Wednesday, Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi made what some may interpret as a veiled threat by the Iraqi government against a Syrian government tolerant of cross-border terrorism:

    "My brothers, this is historic, national and legitimate mission. You are protecting this gate at the western border that used to be a source of evil to Iraq and a source for the entrance of vampires into Iraq," he said during a visit to the western border town of Husaybah.

    Dulaimi said: "We tell our neighbors, take care of your own affairs and don't interfere in Iraq's affairs ... Iraqis are heading for the future and they will not be stopped by a car bomb or a filthy body rigged with explosives," he said.

    "You should not be a gate of evil to us. I hope you will be a good gate. I also tell them don't let our patience run out."

    al-Dulaimi and the top US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, were making a ceremonial visit to the border town of Husaybah, where border guards returned to their posts after the completion of a combined U.S-Iraqi offensive "clear and hold" operation called Steel Curtain last week that killed 139 insurgents and detained 256 suspects.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    November 30, 2005

    Massive Ammo Cache Found In Kirkuk

    Via Central Command:

    Iraqi and U.S. forces have removed more than 4,200 mortar rounds from a major weapons cache found outside of an abandoned military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk Sunday.

    The buried rounds were discovered by Iraqi Soldiers Sunday morning. The Soldiers removed about 800 mortar rounds before realizing that the cache was much larger than they originally thought. U.S. Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team were called in to help excavate the munitions and secure the area.

    The ammunition was buried under concrete blocks with dirt mounded on top. All of the ammunition removed so far has come from one mound located in a field full of similar mounds. The explosives ordnance disposal team at the site expects to find more rounds as the search expands throughout the field.

    I'll be interested to see if the shells are all conventional munitions in nature, or if perhaps there is something potentially more interesting in the mix.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    They Can't Stand The Competition

    The L.A. Times just cannot stand the fact that another news organization might push a myopic one-sided view of the War on Terror... at least one that conflicts with their own, myopic one-sided view, that is.

    Jeff Goldstein responds as well as I ever could, so go read it over there.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    November 29, 2005

    Because They Care So Much...

    MoveOn.org cares so much about America troops that they...

    wait for it...

    can't even identify American troops.

    But hey, they're getting better. This was actually their third attempt.

    They originally tried this one:

    This was their second choice:

    Better luck next time, losers.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:59 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    Light-headed




    Ahmadinejad saw a bright light, alright...Zzzap!

    Via LGF, and straight to the rubber room:

    Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it.

    "He said when you began with the words 'in the name of God,' I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech]," Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. "I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink."

    Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.

    "I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking," he says. "They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

    Baztab.com reported that during the meeting, Ayatollah Amoli said that "carrying out promises and restraining from fooling people" is the most important duty, presumably of officials . However, it is unclear whether that comment is made in reaction to the claim made by Ahmadinejad.

    Critics And Skeptics
    Iranian legislator Akbar Alami has questioned Ahmadinejad's apparent claims, saying that even Islam's holiest figures have never made such claims.

    I'd suspect that Ahmadinejad's chances of dying a natural death just decreased tremendously...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:46 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    November 28, 2005

    Richard Cohen's Alternate Reality

    In Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen pens a column entitled More Than a 'Mistake' on Iraq that is not only incorrect, but bordering on delusional.

    Cohen states:

    A line is forming outside the Iraq confessional. It consists of Democratic presidential aspirants -- where's Hillary? -- who voted for the war in Iraq and now concede that they made a "mistake." Former senator John Edwards did that Nov. 13 in a Post op-ed article, and Sen. Joseph Biden uttered the "M" word Sunday on "Meet the Press." "It was a mistake," said Biden. "It was a mistake," wrote Edwards. Yes and yes, says Cohen. But it is also a mistake to call it a mistake.

    Both senators have a point, of course. They were told by the president and members of his War Cabinet -- Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld -- that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In particular, those three emphasized Iraq's purported nuclear weapons program. As late as August 2003, Condoleezza Rice was saying that she was "certain to this day that this regime was a threat, that it was pursuing a nuclear weapon, that it had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them." To be charitable, she didn't know what she was talking about. [emphasis mine]

    In denying that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had in the past pursued a nuclear weapons program, or that it had biological and chemical weapons and had used them, Richard Cohen shows that he is under the influence of the H5N1 strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and his grasp of reality is tenuous at best.

    The U.K's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (PDF), otherwise known as the Butler Report, stated that :

    a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

    b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

    c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

    The British government stands behind this information to this day, which pre-dates Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

    On January 1, 2003, The Telegraph reported:

    United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.

    Acting on information provided by Western intelligence, the UN inspection teams discovered a number of documents proving that Saddam is continuing with his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to his public declarations that Iraq is no longer interested in producing weapons of mass destruction.

    Or perhaps Cohen should read Saddam, the Bomb and Me, from Mahdi Obedei, one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, in the New York Times:

    Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

    Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.

    The use of chemical weapons in the 1980-Iran Iraq War was well known:

    The war was clearly going against Iraq by 1983, when Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iran. The first of 10 documented chemical attacks in the war was in August 1983 and caused hundreds of casualties, according to CIA sources. The largest documented attack was a February 1986 strike against al-Faw, where mustard gas and tabun may have affected up to 10,000 Iranians.

    To this day, no one really knows how many other Iraqi chemical attacks went undocumented or how many Iranians died in them. Iranians call the survivors of the attacks "living martyrs," and the government in Tehran estimates that more than 60,000 soldiers were exposed to mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun.

    The use of chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians was equally infamous.

    For Richard Cohen to claim that administration officials "didn't know" what they were talking about when they stated Saddam "had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them," is to rewrite history, severing all ties with reality and credibility.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:15 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    Questioning the Unlikely

    Nine days have passed since the first excited rumors surfaced that al Qaeda in Iraq leader Musab al Zarqawi may have died in a dawn raid in Mosul November 19. Shortly thereafter, remains were sent for DNA tests, and it was said that was "highly unlikely" that al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

    That was over a week ago, and "highly unlikely" is still all we have from official sources.

    But what is "likely?"

    It is likely that a conclusive DNA test can be performed in five days or less from commercial sources, and it is probable that samples with as high a priority as al Zarqawi's would be determined before then.

    It is perhaps likely that in the event of al Zarqawi's sudden termination, that U.S forces would intentionally keep quite about his death for a period of time, as the uncertainty in the chain of command could cause terrorists to make mistakes that might expose them.

    It is highly unlikely that Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead... but it isn't impossible, and nor is it highly unlikely that his death would be played out with not-quite confirmations and partial denials lasting as long as feasibly possible.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 3

    Previous:
    The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1
    The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

    False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

    In Part 1 of the series we show that Sigfrido Ranucci's film lies about a napalm attack in the Vietnamese village of Trang Bang in 1972. Despite the fact that this infamous incident was immortalized on film in photographer Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut's 1973 Pulitzer Prize winning photo, it didn't keep Rannuci from trying to blame a South Vietnamese Air Force mistake on Americans. Ranucci's film lied.

    In Part 2 of the series we show that Ranucci's film lies about, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah." But Ranucci's film does not show so much as one helicopter, and Ranucci's "rain of fire" was nothing more than two white phosphorus shell bursts along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. Ranucci's film lied.

    And Ranucci's film continues to lie again and again and again.

    This time, we'll examine the bodies the "white phosphorus victims" of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

    White Phosphorus Pathology
    Forensic Pathology is a branch of medical science concerned with analyzing medical evidence for crimes. When applied to the battlefield, forensic pathology can determine if certain wounds are consistent with different kinds of weapons.

    In Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Sigfrido Ranucci's film shows in excess of 20 bodies his film claims were killed by the use of white phosphorus munitions in the assault on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004.

    But what are the characteristics of white phosphorus weapons?

    To answer this question I turn to former Marine Grant Holcomb. While a Captain and the Operations Officer for 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment from August 1990 to April 1991, Holcomb's unit conducted a minefield breach in Operation Desert Storm. He is an honor's graduate of the U.S. Marine Corps Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare Defense School.

    He states:

    WP catches fire spontaneously in air, burning with a white flame and producing clouds of white smoke - a mixture of phosphorus(III) oxide and phosphorus(V) oxide. The proportions of these depend on the amount of oxygen available. In an excess of oxygen, the product will be almost entirely phosphorus(V) oxide.

    When integrated as part of a projectile, the weapon effect is derived from a chemical reaction. However, a WP based weapon is not a chemical weapon.

    If a piece of WP hits clothes, it will burn through it. If WP hits skin it will burn deeply in to the flesh and cannot be put out by covering it or splashing it with water. Marines are told to cut burning WP particles out with a knife. It does not "splash" like a liquid and will subsequently leave very distinctive scars. There is absolutely no mistaking a WP burn. [my bold]

    So white phosphorus leaves distinctive burns that easily burn though clothing and go deeply into the flesh.

    But Where Are The White Phosphorus Burns?
    As stated earlier, Sigfrido Ranucci's film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, shows in excess of 20 bodies his film claims were killed by the use of white phosphorus munitions in the assault on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004.

    We will now make a brief examination of screen captures of 19 bodies captured from the low quality film to determine if any deep, distinctive burns are present on any of the bodies. As Confederate Yankee strives to be a work-safe blog, I will provide a link to the picture being discussed instead of embedding the image. The time of the still image capture from the film is included should you want to make your own analysis from other, perhaps higher quality versions of the film.

    Examining the Dead
    Body 1. 8:35 An upper torso of a military-aged male. There are no apparent burn marks on the remains, but the fact that these are only partial remains would indicate that white phosphorus, a non-explosive, is not his cause of death.


    Body 2. 9:34
    Extremely decomposed remains, cause of death undetermined. Note, however the film datestamp: 18.11.2004. The assault on Fallujah began November 9, 2004. This image, along with most of the images captured, were filmed nine days after the assault began.

    Body 3. 9:38 Extremely decomposed remains, cause of death undetermined. No apparent burn marks on the body or clothes.


    Body 4. 9:40
    Partially decomposed remains of what appears to be a male. No burn marks viable on head or torso, flesh or clothes. Once again, captured with a datestamp of 18.11.2004.

    Body 5. 9:53 Extremely decomposed, apparently mummified body, sex indeterminate, but probably male. Again, no burn marks.

    Body 6. 10:00 More partially decomposed remains of an apparent military-aged male, without any signs of burn marks on the body or on the clothing. These is a very large wound to the skull above and behind the left eye, and much of the skull is missing, consistent with a bullet wound. This is in direct contradiction the claim of the narrator just six seconds before when he said, "There are no signs of bullet wounds."

    Body 7. 10:07 Badly decomposed body of insurgent still wearing AK-47 magazine pouches. No apparent burns of any sort on bodies or clothes.

    Body 8. 10:09 Another badly decomposed insurgent still wearing ammunition pouches and maybe body armor or a load bearing vest. No signs of burns on light-colored fabric (probably canvas) web gear which would have clearly shown burn marks if there were any to be found.

    Body 9. 12:10 Video provided by Sunni biologist where he claims a female was killed by white phosphorus that passed through her clothes (including a full veil) without touching it, but miraculously melted her face. Fully-clothed body without any burn marks conclusively proves this claim of white phosphorus patently false.

    Body 10. 12:25 More still photo evidence provided by the suspect Sunni biologist. A military aged-male, moderately decomposed. No signs of burns on clothing, possible wounds of some sort to the right side of the head, but angle of photo doesn't allow us to speculate what the cause of death was.

    Body 11. 12:28 Military aged male, moderately decomposed. no evidence of burns on flesh or clothing that appears to be desert camouflage jacket. Top left of skull apparently missing, consistent with bullet wound.

    Body 12. 12:36 A sad victim. Infant male, recently deceased. No signs of burns on clothes or skin. Film appears inconsistent with other footage, possibly spliced in.

    Body 13. 12:38 Extremely decomposed remains. Clothing suggests female. Again, no signs of burns on clothing or skin. Extreme nature of decomposition and dirt covering the entire surface of the body would make me think this was a female killed prior to the battle and buried, possibly by al Qaeda/insurgency elements for a "crime" as simple as wearing such a low-cut blouse. This of course is pure speculation, but very consistent with civilian accounts of al Qaeda activity within Fallujah in the months prior to the assault.

    Body 14. 12:51 Moderately decomposed military-aged male in light-colored short-sleeved tunic. Lower torso and legs may be missing. No signs of burns on skin or clothing, though blood is evident near lower torso.

    Body 15. 13:00 Military-aged male. Heavily decomposed. No signs of burns on body or clothing. Dark stain on upper left quadrant of torso could be blood.

    Body 16. 13:31 Extremely decomposed body. Much of the right side of the skull missing and teeming with maggots.

    Body 17. 19:01 A skeleton covered in ragged clothing. No muscle, ligament, or tendons visible. Subject was likely deceased long in advance of assault on Fallujah, perhaps measured in years.

    Body 18. 19:40 Military-aged male, moderately decomposed. No sign of burns on face or clothes.


    Body 19 19:42
    Same photo of Body 13, shown again.

    Conclusions
    There were no signs of burn marks (white phosphorus or otherwise) on any of the bodies in any of the photos that Ranucci presents as evidence in his film. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the dead shown were military-aged men, suggesting that these men were likely part of the insurgency, and not civilians. Military gear and military style clothing evident on several of the bodies lends some credence to this theory.

    In addition, some of the dead seem to be in extremely advanced stages of decomposition, suggesting death took place prior to the U.S. assault on Fallujah.

    Chemical Weapon?
    Claims were made throughout the film that white phosphorus was a poison gas, and that it could readily pass through clothing to burn the skin beneath it. Again, I turn to the expertise of U.S. Marine Corps Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare Defense School graduate Grant Holcomb:

    Over a 15 year period, I used WP grenades (white smoke signal) and WP mortar and artillery rounds in virtually every live fire training exercise. The thick bright white smoke generated by the WP chemical reaction with air is used to conceal your location as you move toward an enemy position or as a marker for observers and pilots to designate targets for other weapon systems.

    I have personally breathed in the WP white smoke numerous times. It is unavoidable as you move through the battlefield where it is deployed. The smoke does not even make you cough. Clothing exposed to the smoke leaves no noticeable smell. The smoke does not irritate the skin, eyes, or lungs.

    If WP smoke presented any hazard, you can trust that the innumerable liberals in California would not allow Marines to use it on training ranges where the white smoke blows into wealthy neighborhoods (Camp Pendleton, California).

    Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield (England), came to the following conclusions when asked to watch the film for George Monbiot of the British newspaper The Guardian:

    He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition".

    We know that people died in the assault on Fallujah, and that was never in doubt. It is also a sad fact that some civilians died during the assault, even though probably more died at the hands of the insurgency in almost two dozen insurgent-run torture cells before the assault began.

    Another thing we know is that white phosphorus does not act the way Ranucci's film claims nor does he show any credible evidence that white phosphorus contributed to the dead and injured he showed in his film.

    Sigfrido Ranucci's film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, is a living lie, easily disproven. Ranucci isn't the only liar in this film however; he had willing accomplices.

    We'll discuss some of them in far more detail before we've concluded The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

    Update: The Signaleer has graphic evidence of the difference between WP burns and those dead shown in Ranuccis' fraudulent film.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    November 27, 2005

    Ranter Admits to Liberal Lies About Iraq War Support

    Its long been an open secret, but at least one liberal is coming clean about their two-faced positions on supporting the troops in Iraq.

    Via Newsbusters.org:

    It was a classic "gotcha" moment.

    Ellen Ratner, the short, liberal side of The Long & the Short of It on Fox & Friends Weekend, just let the liberal cat out of the bag. Discussing the Democrats' approach to Iraq withdrawal proposals, Ratner admitted:

    "If you got [Dem leaders] in a room off camera everyone agrees, but people are trying to look tough on security so the Democrats can win the House back in 2006."

    Jim Pinkerton, the long, conservative side of the equation, pounced on this rare bit of Dem candor:

    "Viewers should note that Ellen basically said that Democrats will think one thing and say another."

    Uh, duh...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:11 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    November 25, 2005

    "Friends of Sheehan" Target Children With Grenades

    Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan must be proud of their "Minutemen" friends for specifically targeting children with hand grenades hidden in dolls.

    These children are the people Cindy Sheehan wants to abandon. She claims to be "heartbroken" that our troops aren't home.

    I wish she cared half as much about these children, but hey, they aren't white, or American, so I guess they aren't worth dying for...

    Right, Cindy?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:45 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

    November 24, 2005

    Military Intel Officer Scoffs at Think Progress "Chemical Weapons" Story

    Originally posted in the comments at Defense Tech, a military reader weighs in on the debunked Think Progress article being repeated by such frauds as Sigfrido Ranucci.

    The "military reader" writes:

    "I have to chuckle at the 'chemical WP' story from the 'Think Progress' website.

    Can they truthfully say that "Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As 'Chemical Weapon'". Sure they can....technically. That is what the words say. However this is not not some Pentagon policy paper, or tactics manual, or even primer on WMD making that claim. It is a HUMINT field report, from a Kurdish source. And we all know several things by now about this type of reporting.

    First, HUMINT reporting can be shaky on several levels, for many reasons. One of the main problem with HUMINT...having a truthful source.

    Second, it is a field report. A straight regurgitation of what the source told the reporter. No analysis has been put against this info whatsoever, it is simply an info report. Chances are, the guy who did up the report had no idea what White Phosphorus really is, so the info sounded like it would make a good report on Saddam's treachery. Also, I would bet, that when the report actually reached an analyst who knew a thing or two about Chemical Weapons, it was probably tossed in the burn bag as ludicrous.

    Lastly, we have to remember the source was the Kurdish opposition. As we well know now, the Kurds were willing to provides lots of "intelligence" to us, much on it not up to snuff. They did this for many reasons, including money, and to influence us to act against Saddam. Once again, a problem with HUMINT is that sometimes there are motives behind a source, not just the information.

    Thus I find it a little ironic that a movement from a certain end of the political spectrum that has chided the President for going to war based on bad intelligence (and worse), is now trying to pillory the Administration and DoD based on the same type of "bad intel" from the same suspect source pool.

    Bottom line is that this is not a definitive "Pentagon Document", but rather one piece of suggestive information provided to the DoD. Thus this is not an example of how the Pentagon considers "white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons" as 'Think Progress' would like to have us believe. It is hardly a smoking gun, say in the way if they found a hypothetical document penned by a Pentagon lawyer warning that WP could be considered CW. That would be something with direct influence on policy, this report is not. I don't think that 'Think Progress' is being underhanded in their analysis, just plain wrong. I just don't think they know what kind of report they are referencing, or how to read it.

    I then sent sent the following message to Think Progress via their web site's contact form:

    Gentlemen,

    I've been reading (and commenting) on your story, "Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon'" for several days now.

    A simple reading of the formerly classified document shows that it is nothing more than a transcript of a phone call between two Kurdish civilians. The Pentagon does note label white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, the civilians do. Your contention is false.

    If John Podesta took down notes of a phone conversation between Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, that fact that he wrote those notes would not mean that Mr. Podesta endorsed the positions, would it? Of course it wouldn't.

    If Think Progress is indeed a "nonpartisan organization" seeking to "provide a forum that advances progressive ideas," don't you think that the idea of advancing truth would warrant a retraction of your erroneous story?

    Thank you very much for your time.

    Sincerely,

    Bob Owens
    Confederate Yankee Blog
    http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/

    I do not expect a response.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:06 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    November 23, 2005

    Standing Up, Standing Down

    139 terrorists killed. 256 terrorists captured. Operation Steel Curtain ends today as a success.

    Did I mention that a substantial number of the soldiers fighting for the coaltion were locally-recruited Iraqis?

    Via Centcom:

    The 17-day offensive, which took place in the cities of Husaybah, Karabilah and Ubaydi, was part of the larger Operation Sayaid (Hunter) designed to prevent al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists from operating in the Euphrates River Valley and throughout al Anbar province. The operation made way for the establishment of a permanent Iraqi Army security presence in the al Qaim region and set the conditions for local citizens to vote in the upcoming Dec.15 elections.

    Operation Steel Curtain ushered in the first large-scale operational employment of the Iraqi Army, approximately 1,000 Soldiers, in western al Anbar province. The Iraqi Soldiers conducted detailed clearing missions alongside Coalition counterparts and began establishing permanent bases within these three cities. Forces at these outposts will prevent the al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists from regaining a presence in these cities and threatening local residents with their murder and intimidation campaign.

    Integration of locally recruited Iraqi Army Soldiers in al Anbar was introduced by the arrival of the Desert Protectors. The Desert Protectors were recruited from the al Qaim region and worked alongside the Iraqi Army and U.S. units throughout the course of the operation. Their familiarity with the area and its people was crucial in identifying friend from foe and enabled their Iraqi and Coalition partners to better understand the geographical complexities of the region.

    This comes on the heels of a discovery of a large cache of terrorist weapons in Baghdad by 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division the day before.

    Iraqi police and military forces are increasingly asserting themselves, and so it is perhaps not surprising that their leaders are feeling confident enough to call for withdrawing coalition forces... if not exactly right now. Some folks seem surprised by this, but they shouldn't be; it has only been our plan since the beginning.

    Some are also a bit taken aback by the fact that Iraqi officials have not condemned the insurgency outright. Indeed, they make the statement:

    In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

    "Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

    Call me cynical, but I'd interpret that as Sunnis pandering to their insurgent elements in an attempt to get their agreement for furhtering the political process, while Shia and Kurd may have agreed because it would focus Sunni insurgents on the U.S. military forces best equipped to kill them.

    The Iraqi government goes forward, insurgents get killed as things wind down, and we leave Iraq with a democratically elected government.

    Yeah, I can get behind that.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    November 22, 2005

    Think Progress Misrepresents Phone Call Between Brothers as "Chemical Weapons" Evidence

    This article by radical liberal group Think Progress might make your blood boil, but be careful: they might then try to label it a chemical weapon.

    Their spin begins:

    To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren't technically “chemical weapons.â€

    I too, was shocked that the U.S military used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. While white phosphorus is an extremely effective obscurant, and it thwarted the ability of terrorist snipers and machine guns to easily slaughter our soldiers by hiding them from view, both night and day, it is all but useless as an offensive artillery round since it can neither penetrate nor burn though the concrete and concrete block construction of the urban battlefield. It was, however, was effective offensively as a "potent psychological weapon."

    In a tactical trick called a "shake 'n bake," American mortars or howitzers would drop several white phosphorus shells as close as possible to an entrenched enemy position. The white phosphorus-saturated felt wedges would then deploy and fall to the ground, where some could potentially burn terrorists hiding in trenches and spider holes, but it would almost certainly obscure their vision, no matter what kind of cover they were under.

    The terrorists, knowing that American forces preferred to use the dense smoke of white phosphorus to screen attacks, would panic, fearing they were about to be overrun. As the evacuated their entrenched ambush positions, high explosive shells were the fired to kill the insurgents flushed out in the open.

    These high explosives, which "aren't technically chemical weapons" as Think Progress is sure to agree, use far more lethal chemical compounds than white phosphorus, and are able to destroy structures, spread fragmenting shrapnel, char, and liquefy flesh with concussive blasts.

    Other battlefield weapons that "aren't technically chemical weapons" but are universally far more a lethal threat than white phosphorus include pistol, rifle, and machine gun bullets, hand grenades, RPGs, mines, IEDs, anti-tank rockets, tank gun rounds, and aerial bombs. Indeed, it would probably be accurate to say that the only kind of ammunition less lethal than white phosphorus shells used in the battle of Fallujah would be magnesium flares… though those could potentially leave nasty burns as well.

    Think Progress's spin continues:

    The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.â€

    Now why on earth would the New York Times claim repeatedly that white phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" and not “chemical weapons?†Could it be the imposing influence of "Freeper" Maureen Dowd? What about that rabid right-winger Frank Rich?

    Or, could it be possible, that the New York Times, long considered as the "newspaper of record," actually interviewed some experts in the field? While a fact-based article might be outdated for a progressive organization lkeThink Progress, I found that my own military artillery experts came to the shocking conclusion that incendiaries catch fire, but aren't chemical weapons like mustard gas, Sarin or VX. Who knew?

    But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature.

    No dears, it isn't a political distinction, but a scientific one. Look up a branch of science called chemistry. You might just learn something that all the reputable news sources already know: white phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon.

    But hey, if you can't rely on falsified media claims, and science lets your narrative down, can't you always rely on rough intelligence draft from a non-expert's brother over the phone?

    DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] . DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS

    Of course you can!

    A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical†describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

    IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

    IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

    In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they're used by our enemies.

    Yes, their “classified Pentagon document" boils down to a single brief phone call between two Kurdish brothers. Not so impressive now, is it?

    And why does Think Progress also leave out the warning the report that forcefully states:

    WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

    Just to make this clear: the Pentagon NEVER referred to white phosphorus rounds as "chemical weapons" in this report. Only the conversation of two Kurdish brothers mentioned the term "chemical weapons" and that characterization was never accepted by the military.

    Think Progress completely misrepresents the core element of their article.

    The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon's legalistic parsings.

    "Legalistic parsing," is Think Progress-speak for "facts."

    The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,†demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.â€

    They quoted William Arkin's throughly debunked Washington Post blog entry as a source? You've got to be kidding me.

    And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

    After all the erroneous and intentional deceit you've tried to pass off so far, do you really think a link to the organization that pays you is going to hold any credibility at all?

    To paraphrase President Bush, this isn't a question about what is legal, it's about what is right.

    What do you know... they finally got something right.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:22 AM | Comments (28) | TrackBack

    November 21, 2005

    He Pressed The "Any" Key Once Too Often

    Via Central Command:

    Coalition forces acting on multiple intelligence sources and tips from concerned citizens raided a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist safe house in Baghdad Oct. 31 capturing an al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist named Uthman Faruq Muhammad Abd-al-Hamid (aka Abu Ibrahim). Abu Ibrahim was a technology expert, advisor and supplier to al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and leaders in Baghdad.

    Abu Ibrahim was a computer store owner, a programmer and part owner in an engineering company in Baghdad. Abu Ibrahim admits he supplied hundreds of triggering devices for improvised explosive devices, as well as other technology items, to the al Qaeda in Iraq military commander in Baghdad on multiple occasions. These items include hand-held radios, cellular telephones, wireless telephones, computers, software and computer parts and electronic components.

    I guess someone else is going to have to rip Baez and Streisand CDs for al Zarqawi from now on.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    November 20, 2005

    Armando: Zarqawi Wasn't a Problem

    Ever willing to downplay any strides towards peace or a more stable Iraq, Armando at Daily Kos is downplaying the significance of Musab al-Zarqawi's possible death after a protracted gunbattle today in Mosul:

    The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.

    What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. [emphasis added]

    Will the death of Musab al-Zarqawi (if confirmed) put an end to all violence in Iraq? Of course not. But the vast majority of terror attacks again primarily civilian targets was the direct result of al Qaeda in Iraq attempting to ignite a civil war. If al-Zarqawi did die today along with senior members of the al Qaeda leadership in Iraq, it is reasonable to suspect that suicide attacks against Iraqi civilians will severely decline.

    As increasing acceptance and participation by Sunnis the last round of elections proved, the struggles between ethnic factions is not "intractable" as Armando asserts. Shia and Kurdish interests are now being joined en masse by Sunni political groups that realize that ballots, not bullets, will ultimately determine the future of Iraq.

    Armando considers defeating terrorists where they live versus where we live "empty rhetoric."

    The majority of 25 million free Iraqis might just disagree.


    Update: Generation Why? has more.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:50 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

    Dead Again?

    Via Little Green Footballs and The Jawa Report, there are now three different reports (via sources of varying credibility) that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (and arguably the real power in al Qaeda since Osama Bin Laden is only communicating with mountain goats and Yetis on a regular basis) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may have died today after blowing himself up once he found himself surrounded by U.S and Iraqi forces.

    Via LGF we have this report from the Jerusalem Post:

    At least one Arab television media outlet reported that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed in Iraq on Sunday afternoon when eight terrorists blew themselves up in the in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

    The unconfirmed report claimed that the explosions occurred after coalition forces surrounded the house in which al-Zarqawi was hiding.

    The Jawa Report has more. Via DEBKAfile:

    US forces and forensic experts are examining the bodies of eight high-ranking al Qaeda leaders in Mosul to find out if their chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is among them.

    A sample of his DNA is in American possession for a match-up.

    The bodies they are trying to identify are of 7 men and one woman, who blew themselves up Sunday, Nov. 20, after their hideout in northern Iraq was under siege by a large US force, backed by tanks and helicopters. The bodies are burned black and unrecognizable. Four Iraqi security officers were killed and 10 injured in the operation.

    Israeli News source Ynet News is also reporting a similar version of events.

    If this is true, (and that is a big if) then the insurgency in Iraq will lose a figurehead and suffer a severe psychological loss.

    If al-Zarqawi did survive, things may not be much better. His own family has renounced him, and some family members have stated that they wouldn't hesitate to kill him.

    Dead or currently alive, I don't think he'll have a very happy Thanksgiving.

    Update: Associated Press is now reporting that:

    U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight — some by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

    Lending more credibility to this theory is this bit of information:

    During the intense gunbattle that followed, three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded, the U.S. military said. Such intense resistance often suggests an attempt to defend a high-value target.

    American soldiers controlled the site Sunday, and residents said helicopters flew over the area throughout the day. Some residents said the tight security was reminiscent of the July 2003 operation in which Saddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, were killed in Mosul.

    If it is true that the security around this site beyond what is ordinary for other post-combat scenes, it would lend some credibility to the theory that this is a site of some importance.

    Time--and DNA tests--will tell.

    Correction: YnetNews was previously and incorrectly identified as an Arab news source. Ynet News is in fact the English-language version of the Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli Hebrew newspaper and web portal.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

    November 19, 2005

    Surrender, Hell: Neo-Copperhead's Embarrass A Hero

    The House rejected the Democratic call for headlong retreat from Iraq by a resounding 403-3 vote this evening.

    Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who stunned his colleagues on Thursday by calling for troops to be withdrawn as quickly as possible.

    Lets try to have a little bit of honestly, shall we?

    Of course the call for a vote was politically calculated—so was Murtha's "surprise" call for a headlong retreat. Despite willful media amnesia, Murtha has been trying to back out, no in, no out of Iraq since 2002, well before the invasion. I'm thankful for Murtha's service to this nation's military, but to call him a pro-war "hawk" is like labeling a Pomeranian an attack dog. When it comes to position on Iraq, Murtha has more flip-flops than an Imelda Marcos/John Kerry timeshare.

    The Democrats pulled a shrewdly calculated stunt by trotting out a hero to try to undercut the White House while the president was out of the country. House Democrats had estimated—and no one could blame them—that a Republican House, so flustered by the Democrat's last cheap stunt, would likely drop the ball again leaving the Republicans looking awkward and foolish as Congress headed into a long holiday break.

    But the Democratic plan backfired, and backfired horribly. Instead of folding as they typically do, the Republicans grew a spine, and embarrassed the neo-copperheads into voting against their own treachery in a resounding and humiliating defeat.

    Congressman Murtha's three decades of military service to his nation was whored away in a cheap bit of failed political theater by the Democratic Party. It is sad, sad sight to see.

    Update Fixed some grammar issues pointed out by those turkeys at Bright and Early that weren't quite as obvious when it was Tired and Late.

    Update 2: Discriminations uses the deplorable tactic of actually looking at what Democrats said. Scum. Also, excellent points brought up by Real Clear Politics about the three that did vote for an immediate withdrawal: Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York.

    Update 3: History will look back at the Democrats as political opportunists using Rep. Murtha to make one last desperate bid to lose the Iraq War and retain some minor relevance . Unfortunately for them, the war plan is working and teh United States will start withdrawing troops in 2006 because we have won.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:10 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    November 18, 2005

    Chicken "Hawks"

    Attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:16 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    November 17, 2005

    The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

    Previous: The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

    False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, as another scene from Sigfrido Ranucci's film amply demonstrates.

    Approximately 18 minutes into the film, we hear this commentary:

    Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in open fields to illuminate enemy troops. For this tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November, as we will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that the chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way to end districts of Fallujah.

    In the days that followed, U.S satellite images shows that Fallujah was burnt out and razed to the ground.

    Tracers are specialized, briefly-glowing bullets used to aim machine gun fire. Traveling several thousand feet per second and emitting small amounts of light lasting just tenths of a second, they are not used as a source of illumination. Rai News24 and director Ranucci have clearly not consulted with any military subject matter experts while in the making of this film, or that preposterous statement would have never been uttered.

    But it gets worse.

    The film that correlates the quoted text above shows footage of what the narrator claims is, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November." But the footage shown does not show helicopters or helicopter-borne weaponry.

    This is a cutaway view of the "helicopter."

    The 155mm howitzer's M825A1 white phosphorus shell present in this picture is packed with 116 white phosphorus impregnated felt wedges. The projectile is approximately 2.5 feet long.

    The top picture shows two M825A1 shells in a still from the U. S Army. The bottom image is a still captured from the Rai film. It shows a flare on the left, and two white phosphorus shell bursts that are nearly identical to the M825A1 shells.

    As a matter of pure fact, the " helicopter attack" shown in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre (from 17:54-18:40) shows a grand total of two white phosphorus shells exploding... along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. That's it.

    There were no helicopters "raining fire" on Fallujah.

    We will however, be discussing helicopters once again before we complete the developing series that is The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:04 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

    Your Friend Osama

    Thanks to Tim Blair, we can see the wonderful world Osama bin Laden would allow for the liberals of this world who don't want us to fight preemptive wars against terrorists and rouge regimes.

    Their "rights" under Osama bin Laden, would be:

    • a mandatory coversion to Islam.
    • the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which would be replaced by strict sharia religious law.
    • homosexuals would be jailed (and likely executed).

    • women and women's pictures would be barred from appearing in the press, magazines, or advertising.
    • alcoholic drinks would be banned.
    • gambling would be barred.
    • Any woman serving "passengers, visitors and strangers" would be out of a job, meaning the end of public employment for women.

    But hey, we're the enemy of the left, remember?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    America, Do Not Lose Heart Again

    I will not question the patriotism nor the sincerity of Congressman John Murtha (D-PA). He is a former Marine who served in Vietnam, and I thank him for his service to our nation at that time. I cannot however, support his call to turn tail and run from Iraq.

    Jim Geraghty's reponse to Murtha's speech is close to my own, but this post is not really about my feelings. Instead, I turn to another veteran comments about this war that I had agreed to publish several days ago.

    You might recognize him by his handle, Old Soldier. These are his words on this war, unedited.

    America, Do Not Lose Heart…, Again
    A Plea from an Old Soldier

    Make no mistake; we are at war with an enemy motivated by a radical theology diametrically opposed to our foundational religious underpinnings as well as our national ideology of divinely bestowed individual freedom and liberty. We can ill afford political polarization emulating our Vietnam War conclusion; political defeat snatched from the jaws of military victory. For the sake of generations to come, this war against radical Islamic terrorists must be prosecuted to a victorious conclusion… there must be no capitulation or appeasement.

    In 1969, as a young man, I went off to war in Vietnam. With the anti-war movement's gain in momentum and the incessant pounding by politicians and the news media that the war was “unwinnableâ€, public opinion turned against the effort. America lost heart; ultimately, we dishonorably withdrew. Militarily, we had actually won1 the war, but the politicians and news media turned that victory into what is now referred to as a defeat for the U.S armed forces. That defeat was not a military defeat; it was decidedly a mutinous political surrender – laid at the feet of a lack of fortitude to see the conflict to victory. With our withdrawal came the purgings and the rise to power of Pol Pot; unnecessarily costing millions of lives. Fortunately (or unfortunately is more realistic) we suffered no adverse repercussions as a nation.

    In 1990, as an older man, I went off to war in Southwest Asia. Saddam's army had invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia asked the United Nations for protection, fearing invasion of their state as well. Resolutions were passed; a coalition formed around the U.S. military and Desert Shield/Desert Storm ensued. This time the political leaders held their tongues; the military commanders prosecuted the war. Victory was accomplished with a minimum loss of coalition lives and done so in very short order.

    Since 1968 there have been approximately 150 acts of violence directly attributed to radical Islamic terrorists. On September 11, 2001 they openly declared war on the United States proper. They have shown their absolute willingness to die to prosecute their theological agenda. With our feathers ruffled and our national ego assaulted, we responded with unified determination in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we did not kill just to kill or strike a blow at a despised enemy; we purposely resolved to displace an oppressive theocracy and a despotic dictatorship with freedom producing democratic governances for each nation. With both popular and political unity we resolutely set about to build Free states that would no longer sponsor terror; but would in fact become allies against the oppressive radicals, and become shining free beacons to oppressed nations around them. This was not an easy undertaking; desired results could not reasonably be expected to occur overnight.

    In both Afghanistan and Iraq, operational control was initially given to the military commanders and resounding successes ensued. However, since the initial military successes, politicians have become involved, constraining both resources and operations; now “quagmire†becomes the description most often coined by the MSM. Political polarization is being fueled by increasingly noisy anti-war groups. One political party has come to disavow their initial support for the actions taken. Elite liberalism is crying out that this war is “unwinnableâ€, that, “this country isn't worth dying for.†Their twisted distortion has erroneously caused the enemy to become… us.

    Militarily, to be victorious it is imperative to know the enemy; i.e., know his tactics, know his doctrine, know his motivation. Do not confuse “knowing the enemy†with “understanding†his psyche. “Understanding†is a liberalistic warm and fuzzy emotion that contributes nothing to the fight. Our military leaders know our enemy and he can be defeat with the tools we possess. The first tool is actually a toolbox consisting of law enforcement (FBI), intelligence gathering (CIA) and the armed forces. We must mount offensive operations to definitively deny his ability to freely operate. The second tool is our ideology – freedom, liberty, democratic representative governance. We cannot build a free nation where none previously existed if we lose heart and withdraw too soon; abject lesson – Vietnam.

    The current polarizing movement is reminiscent of the Vietnam era; only the flames are being fanned by a tremendously biased and self-flagellating MSM fueled by elitist liberalism. Individually, journalists may be opposed to war and that truly is fine. What are not acceptable are their incessant impositions: “peace at any cost†and the “war is unwinnable.†This irresponsible behavior provides the enemy with hope; hope born of our own boisterous and impatient critics; the very same hope given to North Vietnam. Actions bear consequences; some good, some bad. An unbearable consequence is the unwarranted loss of another soldier because our enemy was fortified by America's loss of heart. Our brave Soldiers will maintain the fight to victory, provided they know we remain committed to they purpose.

    Afghanistan and Iraq are but two fronts of the war. Once victory is concluded there, we must nurture the fledgling nations to maturity. How many years did we “occupy†Germany and Japan after WWII; patiently developing democratic governments? We are not an occupational army in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but each must be given time to emerge and capably assume responsibility for their own security. Both are firmly on that path. However, once each is secure, you can count on another front opening up; the radical Islamic terrorists will undoubtedly move to another terror sponsoring state. We must have concrete national resolve to engage them until they become totally ineffectual. It may require many years to accomplish the required victories one at a time; but, if we are not committed to victory, this may become the 100-Years War of the 21st Century. Failure, God forbid, would rest squarely on the shoulders of elite liberalism; the same elite liberalism that historically would categorically deny any responsibility.

    For reasons involving our national security, ideology, and the safety of your grandchildren, we cannot afford to lose this war – and we will not lose if we resource the first toolbox and let the commanders prosecute the war to victory. If we do not stay the course to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq (and beyond), we will empower our enemy beyond measure. We will unequivocally demonstrate to the radical Islamic terrorists – to that theocracy – that we are not willing to share freedom and our commitment has an expiration date. We will embolden the enemy to initiate more and more attacks against our homeland and most sadly we will no longer be able to nationally lay claim to the phrase, “These colors don't run.â€

    America, please do not lose heart…, again. Our freedom to exist as a nation is at stake.

    I leave you with words spoken almost 45 years ago; words with probably far greater application today than when they were spoken.

    “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

    “In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.†John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, Jan 20, 1961.

    1 According to General Giap, the commander of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, had we continued to prosecute the war – Hanoi would have fallen. Our anti-war movement and political opposition gave the North Vietnamese government the hope they needed to hang on just long enough to finally watch us withdraw.

    About the author:
    Old Soldier was born and raised on the southeastern Connecticut coast. In 1967 he joined the U.S. Army to become a Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot. In 1970 he returned from Vietnam to the rabid zealot cries of “baby killer†and experienced his uniform being spat upon because he did not denounce his war duty. Other tours include: Korea, Italy, a covert intelligence mission in Central America, the First Gulf War (and by contrast returned to a tearfully humbling red carpet heroes welcome), and several other stateside assignments.

    He retired after 31 years active U.S. Army service, achieving: the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Five, and the status of Master Army Aviator. His decorations include: the Legion of Merit Medal, 3 Bronze Star Medals, 3 Meritorious Service Medals, 11 Air Medals, 3 Army Commendation Medals and many more awards and decorations. He currently continues supporting U.S. Army Aviation programs as a defense contractor analyst working in South Alabama.

    Update It seems Murtha's speech isn't exactly news... he said roughly the same thing last year.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:32 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

    The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

    [Note: Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre is a recently released film from Italian Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, and was directed by Sigfrido Ranucci. Thanks to Sgt. B of The Gun Line for the tip in this post at Argghhh!]

    Starting with a lie


    Kim Phuc, as shown in Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre

    Fallujah, the Hidden Massacre, begins with a scene of horrified Vietnamese civilians fleeing a village after an air strike. Many are injured and burned by napalm, including a young girl who stripped naked to escape her burning clothes. The narrator of the Italian film explains that:

    This is how a photo can speak about war, in Vietnam. Kim Phuc, age nine, whose fragile, naked body mutilated by the napalm thrown by the Americans, running, arms outstretched to escape death. It is 1972, and the image will circle the globe over...

    Except this is alternative history.

    On June 8, 1972, at approximately 1:00 PM, AE-1 Skyraiders belonging to the South Vietnamese Air Force based at Bien Hoa, bombed and strafed the outskirts of the village of Trang Bang near the Cai Dai pagoda. American forces were not involved in any aspect of this tragedy.


    Nick Ut's 1973 Pulitzer Prize photograph

    Phan Thi Kim Phuc says actions by photographer Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut that day saved her life.

    But it was the South Vietnamese Air Force, and not Americans who rained fire upon the village of Trang Bang. It is an act of great arrogance and/or incompetence that Rai News 24 would try to rewrite the events surrounding one of the most famous photographed events of the Vietnam War.

    Sadly, this is the mark director Sigfrido Ranucci makes throughout this truly incompetent and dishonest film.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:25 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    What We're Fighting For

    A great letter, via California Conservative.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:16 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    November 16, 2005

    Frist "Sheehan's" the War Effort

    Bill Frist showed his political cowardice Tuesday, co-sponsoring an amendment to a spending bill that undermines the troops and the war on terror. As Residual Forces said in utter disgust, "Bill Frist is dead to me."

    More on this tomorrow. Right now, I'm so pissed I can't see straight, and I don't want to say something I do not mean.

    Update: Swift Boat Veteran Tom "River Rat" Mortensen does a wonderful job conveying the feelings I share in this letter faxed to Republicans senators who voted for the resolution. I'll just let him talk for me:

    Senator,

    Re: The American Surrender Resolution of 2005

    I am named for an uncle who gave his life in the Pacific in 1942 for the freedom of this nation and its principles. My father lost a lung to bunker oil in the waters of the Pacific in 1943 for this nation and its principles. I carry shrapnel from two combat wounds and wear a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat “Vâ€, Navy Commendation Medal with Combat “Vâ€, and two Purple Hearts acquired while defending this nation's principles on the rivers of Vietnam in 1968 and ‘69. I believe this grants me moral authority to say what follows.

    I finally became a committed Republican in 1972 when a Democratic Congress voted to defund support of our allies in South Vietnam. That act of moral cowardice and treachery to our founding principles led to the death of millions in the killing fields of Southeast Asia.

    Your vote yesterday in favor of what I'm calling the “American Surrender Resolution of 2005†is a travesty unparalleled in post-Vietnam American history. Your cowardice in face of an electorate deliberately misled by Democrats and a traitorous National Media is beneath contempt. It will lead directly to the death of now uncountable Americans and Iraqis and their graves will lie directly at your feet. Senator, you are a moral coward and the worst type of political panderer.

    This vote provides direct aid and comfort to our avowed enemies. Thus Senator, you have no right so serve in elective office. I will work tirelessly to assure you are removed from office at the earliest possible date. I will spare no treasure or waking moment in this quest and anticipate the moment I can spit on your political grave.

    I do commend with all honors the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too cowardly Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. You should look to them for the courage you obviously lack.

    Disrespectfully,

    G. Thomas Mortensen
    USA S/V Anticipation
    Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:34 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    November 15, 2005

    Arkin Up The Wrong Tree

    I've come to expect a certain level of dishonesty from the foreign media regarding the error-riddled white phosphorus "crockumentary" produced by Rai News24, but it is another thing entirely for a writer for a major American news organization based in our nation's capitol to uncritically repeat such "news", as has William M. Arkin in his Washington Post piece, "White Death" Is A Losing Strategy.

    Arkin begins:

    The military's use of white phosphorus during operations in Fallujah last year is making its way around the world media and blogosphere, with the claim being that the United States has again shown its inhumane side by using munitions normally reserved for smoke screens and target illumination to terrorize insurgents and kill civilians.

    So the United States is "inhumane" when it decides to “terrorize" insurgents? Cry me a river, Mr. Arkin. I can't seem to work up the same amount of sympathy that you can for those that murder unsuspecting civilians on a near daily basis. Note that Mr. Arkin slyly works the language to portray killing civilians as a co-equal goal of the military mission in Fallujah, along with killing or capturing terrorists.

    At least you can't accuse Arkin of hiding his biases.

    The United States used "chemical" weapons, says the Italian media. A "war crime" says GlobalResearch.ca. "Illegal" and "banned" weapons say others. "White Death" says the African Mathaba.net.

    He couldn't find any reputable news sources, but these will work well enough for his purposes... Just don't ask if the claims they make are "credible." They unequivocally are not.

    The U.S. government's handling of the allegations has been typically clumsy and confused, fueling the controversy.

    Thank the all-but-useless State Department for not being able to clearly state that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, and that the military does not intentionally target any civilians with any of our weapons. Even a blind hog will find an acorn every once in a while.

    But what is most interesting here is why the Army chose to use white phosphorus as a terror and anti-personnel weapon, and why critics insist on labeling it "illegal" without ever recognizing the contradiction in their argument. Because the fight over white phosphorous has become so heated, it is likely that the military will stand firm behind its present policy and the commanders won't be held accountable.

    Again, Arkin proves no compelling evidence at all that white phosphorus was used against civilians, nor can he justify his choice of calling a munition that has been in the conventional military arsenal of the majority of our allies and enemies, a "terror" weapon. It is an intentional misuse of language by Arkin, and a craven act. In addition, Army Field Manual (FM 3-6) states:

    The purposes of incendiaries are to cause maximum fire damage on flammable materials and objects and to illuminate. Incendiary materials used include gasoline, gels, burning metals, incendiary mixes, and white phosphorus. To be effective, incendiary munitions should be used against targets susceptible to fire or heat damage. A considerable part of the target must be flammable, so the fire can spread.

    It might be another scientific shock to Arkin, but human bodies, made primarily of water, are not considered flammable by the military, and therefore, are not thought of as anti-personnel weapons.

    It is also interesting that Arkin wants military commanders to be "held accountable" when he cannot even provide evidence that they did anything wrong, unless, perhaps, in Arkin's opinion it is simply criminal enough to be in the military while President Bush is in office.

    Skipping down a few paragraphs we find:

    The documentary shows close-ups of Fallujah civilians, badly burnt, their skin dissolved or caramelized. An Iraqi biologist in Fallujah is interviewed, saying, "a rain of fire fell on the city," burning people's flesh, but strangely leaving "their clothes intact."

    This is sheer conjecture, by a highly-biased and suspect source, presented as fact.

    Watch the crockumentary and you will see many bodies—well, not many actually, though they repeat then again and again to make it appear there are more than their actually are. Some are clearly wearing military load-bearing equipment as you would inspect an insurgent might, Many of the other dead and wounded, in fact the majority, appear to be military-aged men. As the insurgents are not in the habit of wearing uniforms, it is quite a stretch for the Italian documentary makers to claim these were civilians.

    Further, Arkin does not have any basis for claiming that the state of the bodies had anything to do with specific weaponry without an autopsy performed by a trained pathologist, preferably one with military experience. The bodies in the video most often appear to be in advanced stages of decomposition, not suffering from burns, unless the easily observable maggots on some of these bodies were present before the people died.

    And while some may consider it a minor point, it would also make sense to mention that the Iraqi biologist in question has been accused of being a supporter of the insurgency... if one was trying to be objective, that is.

    Arkin also misses the large, obvious lie embedded in this segment: white phosphorus, which burns hot enough to melt light steel and iron, would most certainly burn through cloth. This is not up for debate, Mr. Arkin. It is a scientific fact.

    The fact that the clothes are intact on the bodies shown is strong evidence towards disproving white phosphorus as being the cause of death. But don't believe me, Mr. Arkin, call a local university chemistry department.

    Obviously, fact checking is not on Arkin's agenda, it gets in the way of his message.

    A year ago, Arab media was filled with reporting that the United States also used napalm and incendiary weapons in Fallujah. Islam Online, a Qatar-based website, reported that U.S. forces used "chemical weapons and poisonous gas." According to the State Department, the claim was soon "posted on hundreds of Web sites." Even the UK Sunday Mirror carried reporting that the U.S. was "secretly using outlawed napalm" in Fallujah

    He has no evidence, but once again more unsupported insinuation seems to be enough for him. Arkin refuses to do the minimal legwork it would require to find out if any Mark 77s were expended in Fallujah during the assault. They were no known sightings of the massive fireballs characteristic of such weapons, cited by so much as a single credible source. Not one.

    The Pentagon categorically denied the use of any chemical weapons, but the U.S. government did admit that the Marines had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in 2003, and the admission became conflated with the denial.

    The U.S. further painted itself into a corner arguing that although it had removed its last napalm bombs from its arsenal in 2001, "napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed."

    He doesn't have any evidence, but he'll still insinuate his predetermined storyline. Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

    Finally, the U.S. said that phosphorous was used only "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

    That was from the State Department, which can't figure which end of a gun to point, and should never have been involved in this conversation.

    Arkin then goes on to repeat this partial story, the he finds (not surprisingly) on a far left wing blog:

    A year later, after the Italian documentary, the U.S. was again denying, but this time there was no denying that the claims about the use of white phosphorous appeared valid. Dailykos reported that the March 2005 edition (pdf) of the Army's official Field Artillery Magazine contained an article -- "The Fight for Fallujah" -- by three Army artillerymen that said:
    "We used it [white phosphorous] for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosives]. We fired “shake and bake†missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

    First, American military forces never claimed (to the best I can determine) that we did not use white phosphorus in the battle for Fallujah. White phosphorus was primarily used as a screening agent, a luminary, and as an anti-material weapon, as doctrine indicated. The "shake and bake" missions were a perfect example of this doctrine, and worked only because the insurgents know that white phosphorus is typically employed as a screening agent.

    As the article stated, white phosphorus was used for screening mission so American forces could advance during the battle. The "shake and bake" mission were a "potent psychological weapon" because WP dropped upon their position made them fear they were about to be the immediate victims of an overrun attack by United States Marines. Marine forces were better armed, better armored, and better trained than their opponents, and the insurgents knew this. They tried to fall back to a more defensible position, but were mowed down by high explosive (HE) shells during their retreat. White phosphorus shook them, and HE cooked their respective gooses.

    It is also interesting that rkin and his friends at Daily Kos couldn't seem to find this information in the Field Artillery Magazine article:

    ...TF 2-2 IN encountered few civilians in its attack south.

    How willful do you think that omission was?

    After skipping a few paragraphs, we find Arkin blathering on:

    I for one am reluctant to pronounce whether the use of white phosphorous for "shake and bake" missions in Fallujah and the evident blundering use of white phosphorous in areas known to be occupied by civilians is illegal.

    You shouldn't be reluctant at all. Civilians were given almost a week to evacuate by U.S. forces in the most telegraphed offensive of the war. It was well known that Fallujah was going to become a major urban battleground. The insurgents chose to heavily militarize an urban environment, and by giving civilians plenty of time and advance warning to evacuate the city, the military has every right to claim that Fallujah was an urban battleground ,but that it was not a battleground expected to contain civilians. The Army soldiers Arkin so eagerly quotes above prove that, in fact, civilian contact was rare.

    Neither am I buying the State Department's line that the use of white phosphorous in this way -- that is, to possibly inflict unnecessary suffering -- is not "illegal" use. What I'm sure of is that the use of white phosphorous is not just some insensitive act. It is not just bad P.R. It is the ill thought out and panicked use of a weapon in an illegitimate way. It is a representation of a losing strategy.

    Tell me, Mr. Arkin, what do you consider necessary suffering? The suffering of American soldiers, perhaps? Or perhaps better yet, can you indicate a single weapon that has not inflicted, by your definition, "unnecessary suffering."

    White phosphorus used in Fallujah was not "ill thought out and panicked" as Arkin ignorantly describes, but is part of a well thought out, carefully crafted and well-practiced doctrine that has evolved over many decades of theoretical and practical use. Every credible source indicates that white phosphorous was used exactly in the ways U.S. military doctrine stipulates during the battle of Fallujah.

    There is indeed bad PR being spread, but it is Mr. Arkin and his ilk spreading it.

    Other posts on the White Phosphorus crockumentary:

    Popham, Meet Sites
    Ablution Exclusive: Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims
    Crow. The Other White Meat
    Be Careful What You Wish For
    Rai's White Phosphorus Fraud
    The WP Controversy
    Yet More WP

    Update: Jeff Goldstein joins the fray as well.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:26 PM | Comments (24) | TrackBack

    November 14, 2005

    Senator Traitor?

    h/t The Anchoress:

    Senator Jay Rockefeller's alledged meetings with representatives of enemy states in advance of the Iraq War, if true, should lead to an investigation under the Logan Act.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    November 13, 2005

    Too Far

    The Central Intelligence Agency isn't perfect, but to suggest there is no difference between CIA and al Qaeda personnel is far over the line, even for the traitorous cesspool that is the Democratic Underground.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:31 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    Rai's White Phosphorus Fraud

    Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, recently released a film titled Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre accusing the United States military of using chemical weapons against civilians in the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. Immediately, and without question in most instances, left of center media outlets and political blogs trumpeted the "fact" that white phosphorus was used to create deadly clouds of poison gas, killing unknown scores of Iraqi civilans as they slept in their beds.

    But who are the documentary's experts, and can they be trusted?


    The Documentary "Experts"
    Noted anti-American communist and serial fabricator Guiliana Sgrena was one "expert" who came armed with her opinion, but without any actual evidence. In the film she explains that the terrorists who took her hostage for several months did not want videotaped evidence of U.S. attrocities to leak out.

    Jeff Englehardt, a former soldiers and left-wing poltical blogger has been roundly debunked for his erroneous claims about the physical properties of white phosphorus, has now apparently retracted his claims, while claiming that the Rai film team (that let him go on at length) misquoted him.

    Another "expert witness" journalist mentioned in the video is actually Mark Manning a retired deep sea diver (not Mark Manning, the acid-tripping lead singer of Zodiac Mindwarp and The Love Reaction), who coincidentally, has his videotapes of alledged atrocities conveniently stolen before another living soul could view them, apparently by a cash rich street bum with ties to George W. Bush himself.

    Even the U.S. helicopter video that the documentary presents as evidence of U.S. brutality has been exposed as fraudulently edited footage taken from another battle entirely.

    One might begin to question the credibility of Rai's experts...

    A Real Expert Speaks
    But some experts are rather difficult to refute, and former U.S. Captain Robison (full name and current employment have been witheld for security reasons), a Confederate Yankee reader, is such an expert.

    Captain Robison has over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group.

    He had this to say:

    I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.

    I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that "opens" in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.

    The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn't be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.

    The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.

    The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn't eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn't matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.

    An artillery unit wouldn't use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.

    This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.

    I hasten to add that Captain Robison is a perhaps the single most qualified person to examine this documentary so far.

    He graduated with a B.S. Biology (pre-medicine) from the University of Tampa, and has graduted the U.S. Army Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Signal Officer Adanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and Airborne and Air Assault.

    Further, in addition to his outstanding artillery and medical background, he is also a video expert, contracted under DIA to provide analysis of captured Saddam regime video, documentation, audio, and computer media. Later, his team analyzed captured insurgent media, and analyzed thousands of videos to determine intelligence value. His team provided support that assisted in the capture of Saddam Hussein and later provided intelligence of insurgent activities.

    He had this to say in specific about the video itself:

    I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.
    1. The “fire raining down from the helicopter†was the part that concerned me...

      Contrary to the documentary claim that hellicopters were shooting fire, there are no helicopters in that video segment. There is a split second airbust and if you freeze the picture at the right instant, the airburst lights up the sky. There are no helicopters present. This proves a false claim by the documentary creators in what may be the most significant portion of the video...

      ...I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. At first I thought it was the backblast from a missile being fired the other direction. After a more thorough analysis, I realize it was an air burst of WP artillery rounds. Those are basically small rags that looked like balls of fire. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city. The rag would certainly burn, but it would be like a cigarette and you would just need to brush it off, maybe take off clothes, and get away from it.

    2. The voice over states "contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy" Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?
    3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam's regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.

    The soldiers in the video , however were a bit more complicated for the fomer Captain:

    I find the taller guy, I think his name was Garret, credible. His story rang true and is tragically repeated. [Note: his story was about a civilian car traveling at soldiers at a high rate of speed, and the soldiers firing on the vehicle. --ed.] But this is not a war crime or a chemical attack, but bad target identification and a complete human tragedy, assuming the "civilians" were indeed non combatants, it is very hard for the soldiers to tell. Although I do question his motives that is irrelevant to this analysis since he provides no “evidence†of chemical weapons.

    The other guy Jeff was a liar, to the point I would need to see his orders to believe he was in Iraq. He states, (paraphrasing) "the orders unequivocally came from the pentagon to wait until after the election".

    How does he know this? Was he CENTCOM commander at the time? Did the CENTCOM commander call him up and tell him that? Even if it was true, that fact in itself is not nefarious.

    The re-election of Bush would be a crushing blow to the Jihadists in Fallujah, and let me tell you, I have seen their own videos recovered from there and the place was crawling with them. It would make tactical sense to wait, if you were pretty confident that Bush would win. They call this tactical patience.

    Also, the timing of the attack was heavily influenced by the Iraqi Provisional Authority. The U.S. had just helped them form and wanted to get them involved with running their country as soon as possible. That is why the first battle of Fallujah was ended, because the new Iraqi government wanted more time to talk with the Jihadists. That is until the new Iraqi government officials figured out that they were now the primary target of the Jihadists and told the U.S. effectively, go get them (the Jihadists in Fallujah) as soon as you can.

    Jeff states (paraphrasing), that the U.S. was using chemical weapons because we used WP.

    Hogwash.

    Furthermore about Jeff Englehardt (and for the record, I noticed this too):

    He states (paraphrasing) when they used the stuff (WP) they would come over the net and say the WP is coming or "commence bombing" or something.

    Commence bombing? Who was on the net giving this sitrep, Clark Gable? That's about the last time anybody used this term. This guy is a clown.

    But for Captain Robison, perhaps the most damning evidence of fraud comes from contradictions in the very video itself:

    The real tip off about the credibility of this “news story†is the pictures of dead animals.

    The voice over said, paraphrasing: that several animals were found dead with no visible sign of trauma.

    First off, did they examine the animals? If so, they didn't show it. Sure something is not visible, if you don't look! Animals die everyday from natural causes, hunger, disease, or even getting hit by cars or possibly by conventional weapons.

    And get this, they show people who appear burned and claim this to be a sign of a chemical weapon, then they show animals with no injuries in the context of this discussion to imply they died of a mysterious chemical weapon. Their “facts†not only fail to support each other, but they directly conflict with each other.

    After reviewing all of this evidence, he states:

    By introducing these “facts†in the context of a chemical weapons discussion, yet not having any supporting evidence, I can only conclude that not only are these charges false, but this was done with the documentary creator's full knowledge that they were baseless charges. In other words, they purposely lied, which goes to their credibility.

    Captain Robison then floored me with this firsthand experience as he reacts to reading this story at Daily Kos, regarding Marines talking about using white phosphorus in screening missions:

    The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it. [my bold]

    Unless someone at Daily Kos or Rai News24 can present me with convincing evidence that Captain Robison died due to his exposure and is now a zombie, then I think this "crockumentary" can now be listed as thoroughly debunked.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:09 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

    November 11, 2005

    Yippie-Ki-Yay...

    Via The Corner:

    It's about these guys. It's about these guys who do what they are asked to do for very little money to defend and fight for what they consider to be freedom.

    And it's not just for this country. It's for the world. It is time for terrorism to stop. And the United States is the country that can stop it. And that's what they're doing over there."

    That was actor Bruce Willis, talking about Duece Four LTC Erik Krillia's unit if you read Michael Yon as you should, before offering one million dollars of his own money for the heads of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri, or Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:01 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    November 10, 2005

    Be Careful What You Wish For

    Diarist Steven D at Daily Kos, citing the Altercation peice without bothering to put his brain in gear, parroted the same argument, cuasing a gleeful kos to make the challenge:

    Let's see them deny this shit now -- kos

    Bad move, cupcake.

    In a post titled "US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon," Steven D starts off with the following claim:

    That's right. Not from Al Jazheera [sic], or Al Arabiya, but the US fucking Army, in their very own publication, from the (WARNING: pdf file) March edition of Field Artillery Magazine in an article entitled "The Fight for Fallujah":
    "WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
    In other words the claim by the US Government that White Phosphorus was used only for illumination at Fallujah had been pre-emptively debunked by the Army. Indeed, the article goes on to make clear that soldiers would have liked to have saved more WP rounds to use for "lethal missions."

    Steve D seems to have an issue meshing reading comprehension with tactical knowledge, as exposed by the paragraph that he cites as "proof" of chemical weapons attacks.

    A primary use of white phosphorous is indeed creating smoke screens. But Steve D somehow manage to transmutate the use of white phosphorous as a "potent psychological weapon" into that of a chemical weapon. WP was used to scare the enemy, so that the enemy would run, where he would then be cut down by high explosive fragmentation ammunition.

    Am I to believe that he takes issue with scaring the enemy before we kill him?

    Steve D then repeats an untruth from emailer Mark Kraft at Altercation, who wrongly claims:

    . . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature.

    Unequivocally this is false information. Altercation's commentator Kraft is totally, completely wrong. White phosphorous has been used for over 60 years by the United State military, and is most often deployed to screen the movement of troops from specific enemy positions. As these soldiers assault the position screened by the white phosphorous cloud of smoke, they must often maneuver directly through that smoke to taken their objective. I have been unable to find one instance dating from World War II to the present where a soldier has become a casualty as the result of the "deadly chemical cloud" Kraft relates to. As one of my readers, a retired Army Lt. Colonel related to me via email, "I'm sure breathing the smoke isn't the best thing for you, but Sarin it ain't."

    Sadly, it just gets worse for Steve D. and others on the left that would like to forge ahead with this false story.

    Military experts have debunked all claims made about white phosphorous weapons. The Italian filmmakers who started this left-wing meltdown have had their credibility shredded, and their American soldier witness was found to be an anti-war activist who never got closer to the battle than a radio.

    Now even kos is trying to backtrack and shift focus. Too little, too late.

    Consider you anti-American hatred forcefully, and conclusively, denied.

    Update: More background on the Italian television station at the bottom of this left-wing fiasco from Captain Marlow.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    November 09, 2005

    Crow. The Other White Meat

    Yesterday, I wrote blog post responding a pack of lies passed off as journalism by the Independent's Peter Popham.

    Popham wrote an article accusing the United States military of using massive quantities of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon the battle of Fallujah. He claimed massive civilian casualties. He claimed that assault went unreported by the media, as were (presumably) the supposed atrocities. But none of Popham's story is supported by the truth.

    I wrote a scathing reply to his false charges in this post, pointing out the very obvious fact that many journalists were in Fallujah, including Kevin Sites who shot the internationally famous (or infamous) video of a Marine shooting a wounded terrorist in a Fallujah mosque, or of a picture that made a Kentucky Marine famous as the "Marlboro man."

    News photographers shot thousands of photos and hours of video in Fallujah. I was so right about the fact that they were there, but I was so wrong about what their presence and photographic evidence meant.

    After reading Popham's article, I must have internalized the quote from the "former American solider" he quotes, who said:

    "Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

    I then claimed that the lack of protective gear in the photos proved white phosphorous could not have been used in "massive quantities" as claimed by Popham. Boy, was I wrong. It proves nothing of the sort.

    From a reader, who happens to be something of an expert:

    You made an erroneous correlation in your commentary "Popham, Meet Sites" concerning the absence of chemical protection on the Marines indicating that WP would not have been used. Chemical protection is not needed nor used when WP is employed. There is no respiratory "chemical threat" associated with WP. Our chemical protection suits would not protect a person from burns associated with WP. (WP would burn right through a chemical protection suit.)

    In other words, the lack of protective gear I cited meant precisely nothing, because protective gear wouldn't stop white phosphorous, nor even slow it down. He further clarifies the properties of WP:

    WP is not employed in an anti-personnel roll. It works great in disabling equipment because of the extreme heat properties of the chemicals. It can burn through thinner steel and iron very quickly rendering equipment unusable. Of course it will quickly ignite fuel and ammunition, hence its use against POL [petroleum/oil/lubricants] and Ammo storage areas. It does not work well against heavily armored equipment like tanks because the there just isn't a large enough mass of burning phosphorus to burn through tank armor.

    But wait. Didn't Popham claim the following?

    Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

    So clothes don't remain "largely intact" nor is skin "dissolved," but is instead completely burned away. White phosphorous does not leave skin "carmelised" nor turns the skin "consistency of leather."

    High explosives, commonly used in warfare, however, can "carmelise" skin, and dead bodies in hot dry desert air tends to begin to mummify, and can quite easily turn " the consistency of leather" because of the desiccation of the human body in such an environment.

    In short, these wounds are not caused from WP. Period. The burn physics of white phosphorous does not change, though the excuses on the Left flitter by like the wind.

    The expert concludes:

    Most of the Fallujah operation was conducted in daylight, so the primary use of WP would have been as an obscurant. WP especially from mortars would serve no useful destructive purpose (like an HE round). Technically, in this employment roll, WP would be a tactic, not a weapon – in that it would not be fired with the expectation of killing the enemy. If the enemy was inside a building WP would be wholly ineffective as a weapon employed to neutralize/kill him...

    In your defense, Sites and any other reporters close at hand did not report any massive use of WP. It would seem to me that if the Marines had used massive amounts of WP rounds; something out of the ordinary as compared to tactics previously employed, there would have been reporter comments. Not comments condemning the use of chemical weapons, but comments about the employment of an unseen and unusual tactic. Those comments were not forthcoming.

    Scott Burgess at the UK blog The Daily Ablution has a similar conversation with an expert today that follows a similar path and reaches similar conclusions.

    The Independent stories--Popham's yesterday, and Andrew Buncombe's today--are meritless, tawdry political theater based upon willful ignorance and deliberately uncritical reporting and editing.

    I guess there is a place for "Mary Mapes-style" journalism in the world after all.

    Also: While you're here, consider this post, will you?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:21 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

    November 06, 2005

    France Fries


    A burned-out McDonalds in Corbeil-Essonnes, south of Paris. Via Yahoo!

    A bomb-making operation was found in a Paris suburb last night as more than 900 vehicles, schools and shops were torched by Muslim immigrants in incidents spreading across France from Normandy to Paris to Mediterranean Sea.

    The European Civil War is ahead of schedule, but hardly surprising. Sadly, as Mark Steyn notes, we have come to the edge of critical point in Western European history.

    Now would be a prudent time to deploy the military to restore order, but as Parapundit notes, the loyalty of the French Army is in doubt.

    The riots seem to be spreading, the police are ineffectual, the government is paralyzed by doubt, and the military, apparently, isn't trusted to follow orders.

    If the French don't break out of their torpor soon, this might become known as the largest minaret in the world.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:05 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    November 04, 2005

    Gore-Wilson-Alamoudi-al Qaeda?

    Wow.

    Probably nothing but a conspiracy theory, but all too many intersecting interests, altogether, indeed...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    November 03, 2005

    Spanish Train Bomb Suspect Captured?

    Via AP:

    One al-Qaida suspect was killed in a police raid and a second was arrested, Pakistan announced Thursday, and an official said officials are trying to determine if the detainee is a Syrian with a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head for training terrorists.

    Intelligence officials said a third man, with links to a Pakistani extremist group, was also captured Tuesday during the raid on a shop in this southern city that served as the office of an Islamic charity linked to a militant group.

    "I can only confirm there was an encounter, and our security forces arrested one suspected al-Qaida terrorist while another terrorist was killed," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told The Associated Press. He said it would "take some time" to confirm their identities.

    But a senior government official raised the possibility one of the arrested men is Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, 47, a Syrian native who holds Spanish citizenship.

    It continues

    Media reports have linked Nasar, also known as Abu Musab al-Suri, to the 2004 commuter train bombings in Madrid, Spain, that killed 191 people and to the July 7 attacks in London that left 56 dead, including the four bombers.

    In September 2003, Nasar was among 35 people named in an indictment handed down by a Spanish magistrate for terrorist activities connected to al-Qaida.

    If this is true, another high-level terrorist is out of action. The killing or capture of "A" list terrorists are getting fewer and further between. Of course, that probably has something to do with the fact that there aren't many more "A" listers still alive.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    October 30, 2005

    "Activists"

    Via FoxNews.com:

    "Activists," you say?

    At least 61 of their fellow "activists" were killed and another 188 "activists" were injured as four nearly simultaneous "combustible demonstrations" occurred in New Delhi on Saturday, October 29, 2005.

    Someone should tell the Associated Press and Fox News that watching your friends and neighbors get blown up does tend to make people active.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    October 29, 2005

    Bacon-Phobics are At it Again

    Via Drudge. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Methodists...

    Three teenage Christian girls were beheaded and a fourth was seriously wounded in a savage attack on Saturday by unidentified assailants in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi.

    The girls were among a group of students from a private Christian high school who were ambushed while walking through a cocoa plantation in Poso Kota subdistrict on their way to class, police Major Riky Naldo said.

    The area is close to the provincial capital of Poso, about 1000 kilometres northeast of Jakarta.

    Naldo said the heads of the three dead victims were found several kilometres from their bodies.

    In Jakarta, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ordered the police to begin a hunt for the killers.

    "In the holy month of Ramadan, we are again shocked by a sadistic crime in Poso that claimed the lives of three school students," he told reporters at the airport as he prepared to fly to Sumatra island.

    "I condemn this barbarous killing, whoever the perpetrators are and whatever their motives."

    You know who they are, just as I do, and the "motive" was that these girls were Christian.

    Cropdust with bacon grease, then an ARCLIGHT strike. Sounds about right to me.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:01 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

    October 26, 2005

    Iran Volunteers to Test Israeli Nukes

    Having not yet fully developed their own nuclear capabilities, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems intent on testing the capabilities of Israel's nuclear warheads... on the Iranian population:

    "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

    "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

    "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

    Are Syrian and Iranian leaders in some sort of a contest to see who gets deposed next?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:52 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    Hear That?

    Three Iraqi Sunni parties are forming a political coalition. Don't expect to see that on page 1 of the NY Times.

    That tapping sound you here is the sound of Iraqi democracy driving nails into to coffin of al Qaeda in Iraq.

    al Qaeda's strategic war is lost, their tactical capabilities steadily eroded. The terrorists have the ability to still kill, sometimes spectacularly, but they no longer have any chance of containing a nation of people that has demonstrated that it wants freedom, and is willing to trust the ballot more than the bullet.

    As daily developments continute to prove, Allah is not on the side of the Jihadis.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    October 23, 2005

    Repost: Go To Hell, Cindy Sheehan

    [The American military is on the eve of losing its 2,000th soldier in combat in Iraq after well over two years in action. In that time, 26 million Iraqi people have been given a say in the future of their country, and two rounds of national voting have proven that democracy has a chance in a part of the world that detractors said it would never take root.

    In this environment, a vengful, spiteful woman would still sacrifice it all -- 26 million Iraqi lives, and the sacrifice of 2,000 American soldiers-- in hopes of some sort of twisted revenge against the one man she holds responsible for her son's death. For one man, she would sacrifice nations. Her name is Cindy Sheehan.

    This post was originally released August 9, 2005.]


    Let me make this perfectly clear: I loath Cindy Sheehan.

    I despise everything she stands for, and love the ideals she stands against. I hate how she dishonors her brave son's memory. I cringe when she utters stupid talking points—“why did the president kill my son?â€â€”and I cannot stand the fact that she egotistically thinks she is more important than the tens of millions of people she would undermine in her quest for vengeance. Clearly, her arrogance knows no limits.

    The most important mother in the world.
    Cindy Sheehan thinks she is the most important mother in the world.

    She is holding a vigil to speak to the president—again—even though she has made it abundantly clear in her comments to the news media that she has nothing new to offer other than clichés. She wants the troops to pull out of Iraq now, no matter the future costs or the wasted sacrifices. She wants Bush to personally account for her son's death. She wants Bush to personally tell her why her son died. She, she, she. Well guess what Cindy?

    You are not the only mother who has sent a son off to war. You are one mother of the more than 1,800 troops who died serving their country in a military they volunteered to join, knowing that they could be sent off to war. There are thousands of other mothers who have had their sons and daughters wounded in combat. There are mothers for each and every one of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, from more than a dozen nations, that have served in Iraq in an effort to bring democracy and hope to that region.

    Nor are you more important than the mothers of the 25 million Iraqis that your son Casey was trying to bring freedom. You didn't understand his courage or commitment, and you can't understand why someone who lay down their life for a stranger. That is your problem Cindy Sheehan, and you dishonor your own son's memory every time you open your mouth to fight against everything he gave his life for.

    Nor are you more important, Cindy Sheehan than the mothers of the tens of millions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other nations tasting freedom for the first time because of brave men like your late son.

    Despite what you think, Cindy Sheehan, you are not more important than any of these millions of other mothers, though you would make all their sacrifices in vain to bring down a President.

    Vengeance, not Justice. Hatred, not Hope.
    Your son died trying to bring freedom to an oppressed people. I can think of no more noble sacrifice. But you, Cindy Sheehan, you want revenge for your heartache, and you don't care who gets hurt in the process.

    That is why you, Cindy Sheehan, can go to hell.

    You decided, in a mind warped by your association with head cases like Code Pink and Veterans for Peace, that George W. Bush made your son patriotic and gave him the heart to serve his country, and that George W. Bush made him volunteer for military service, and that George W. Bush forced him to want to make the military his career, and it was George W. Bush that made him re-enlist. And of course, George W. Bush pulled the trigger on the RPG in the Sadr City slum that took his life.

    Cindy Sheehan doesn't give a damn about the millions of Iraqis her son was trying to bring freedom. Cindy Sheehan doesn't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that have rotated in and out of Iraq in that same quest. Cindy Sheehan doesn't give a damn if Iraqis are ruled by themselves or if they are tortured by tyrants. She is petty. She is vengeful. She wants revenge, and she doesn't care who gets hurt or who dies in the process.

    I am ashamed for Casey Sheehan. He understood that there are things in this world worth giving up your life to create, and he made that sacrifice. His mother Cindy, full of hate, seeks only seeks to destroy.

    I can understand her grief, but I cannot forgive the fact that she is willing to threaten the lives of others and give our enemies hope to satisfy her need for revenge.

    A terrorist RPG killed the body of Casey Sheehan. It took his mother to try to kill his legacy.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:40 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

    October 20, 2005

    The Other White Meat

    The web is running wild with reports that U.S. soldiers desecrated the bodies of two Taliban terrorists by cremating them, and then used the action to taunt other terrorists.

    According to Jason Coleman, some liberal blogs are claiming that the bodies were intentionally placed facing west as an insult.

    That is demonstrably false, and easily proven.

    Warning: graphic photo below the jump.

    If the body was facing east or west, the shadows would be running parallel with the alignment of the bodies. As you can tell by looking at the feet of the bodies, they are perpendicular to the shadows.

    The narrative does not hold.

    Coleman and Dan Riehl, and Hyscience have much more about both the incident itself, the Austrailian embed who reported it, and the news organization that reported it.

    This stinks

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:00 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    October 12, 2005

    Remembering the Cole

    The al Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole five years ago today was my first awakening to the willingness of Osama bin Laden to attack the United States head-on. Michelle Malkin has the definative round-up.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Missed Again

    Via Fox News:

    ...two rockets exploded near the U.S. Embassy in the center of the Afghan capital Wednesday, wounding two people hours hours before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was due to arrive on an official visit. Rice's visit on Wednesday is her second trip to Afghanistan as secretary of state.

    Sooner or later, people are going to learn that terror attack just serve to make make Condoleeza Rice that much more determined.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    October 07, 2005

    These Sheep Are Made For Eating.

    I've made a horrible mistake of not blog-rolling Michael Yon before. The former Green Beret turned independent journalist shows why we - and more importantly, our Iraqi allies - are winning the war against the terrorists in Iraq.

    A sample from his latest dispatch, The Battle For Mosul IV - Soldiers, Spies, and Sheep:

    Colonel Noradeen wanted to put his office in the middle of Yarmook Traffic Circle, which might ring familiar to folks who have read my previous dispatches: it might well be the most dangerous traffic circle in the universe. On my first mission in Mosul, we lost two American soldiers and an interpreter just nearby after a man rammed his explosives-filled car into a B Company Stryker.

    Sandbags cover the window of Noradeen's office. During one meeting, we took sniper fire, but it didn't make much difference—we were inside. Another day when I was not there, some mortars landed just outside Noradeen's office and heavily damaged some American Humvees. Those types of attacks are not show-stoppers, but giant truck bombs can flatten a building and kill the entire unit. Noradeen's current office was safe from giant bombs, but he wanted to move his office to Yarmook traffic circle—where shootouts and car bombs are guaranteed. Designing the outpost to withstand multiple simultaneous car bombs or giant truck bombs would require some thinking. When one of the American officers had asked Colonel Noradeen, “Why do you want an office at Yarmook Traffic Circle?†he answered simply, “If I build it there, they will come to me.â€

    Full stop.

    That hung in the air.

    One second.

    Two seconds.

    Kurilla said under his breath to one of his own officers, “That's why I love this guy.â€

    Go read Michael Yon, and come to understand why this war is being won.

    One sheep at a time.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:37 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    October 06, 2005

    Thanks, Jamie

    Did you catch it?

    An early version of this story stated that:

    According to sources in intelligence, emergency services and police headquarters, when three Iraqi insurgents were arrested several days ago during a raid by a joint FBI-CIA team, one of those caught disclosed the threat.

    A newer version of the exact same article states:

    According to sources in intelligence, emergency services and police headquarters, the intelligence community developed information that the threat may have involved pharmacists from Iraq coming to New York for some kind of chemical attack targeting the subways.

    Three insurgents, one or more of whom are pharmacists, were arrested during a raid by a U.S. military and intelligence community team, sources said, and one of those caught disclosed the threat. Because it slipped out during the arrest, the plot was deemed credible.

    A joint task force of the FBI and CIA caught the terrorists. Working together.

    It makes you wonder what these joint agency teams might have prevented if it wasn't for Jamie Gorelick's "wall of separation," which prevented these agencies from working together to thwart terrorist attacks in the past.

    Update: Jason Smith at Generation Why? noticed the disappearing CIA-FBI jointstrike team as well in his second update to this post. Could someone at ABC News have been worrying about how this story reflects on Gorelick?

    This bears further discussion.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    New York Terror Alert

    LIVE-BLOGGING,so it might be sloppy:

    Fox New television is reporting the New York Police Department has raised the terror threat level on the New York subway system, and has increased police patrols.

    Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commisioner Ray Kelly says there is "sufficient concern" of a a specific terror threat against a specific target in the subway system in coming days, but the nature of the threat remains classified, though he did reveal that this threat originated overseas. Police officials are increasing bag searches and increasing the number of undercover officerson subway trains.

    Interestingly enough, unlike similar threats in the past, they have mentioned that elements of this threat have been "partially disrupted," which I take to mean that this threat is concrete, though Bloomberg is saying no arrests or detentions have been made. I read this to mean that the bombers were denied entry into the United States, but that is just wild speculation.

    According to Mayor Bloomberg, this is the first credible threat to the NYC subway system.

    To my friends in NYC keep your eyes open, and come home safe.

    Update:

    Via ABC News:

    The New York Police Department is investigating what it deems a credible tip that 19 operatives have been deployed to the city to place bombs in the subway, and security in the subways will be increased, sources told ABC News.

    While the police department is taking the threat seriously, it is also urging the public not to be alarmed because – while the source is credible – the information has not been verified.

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said this was the most specifically detailed threat made against the subway system, and he urged New Yorkers to be vigilant.

    "I wanted to assure New Yorkers that we have done and will continue to do everything we can to protect the city," Bloomberg said. "We will spare no resource. We will spare no expense."

    According to sources in intelligence, emergency services and police headquarters, when three Iraqi insurgents were arrested several days ago during a raid by a joint FBI-CIA team, one of those caught disclosed the threat. Because it slipped out during the arrest, the plot was deemed credible.

    After several days of work, sources said, the NYPD is increasingly concerned because it has been unable to discredit the initial source and additional information from the source.

    The 19 operatives were to place improvised explosive devices in the subways using briefcases, according to two sources. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said officers will continue to check bags, briefcases and strollers, and additional uniformed and undercover officers will be riding in individual subway cars.

    Wait a minute...the Iraqi insurgency is involved? Where were these guys arrested? I'll be very interested to find out if these terrorists report to al-Zarqawi or Bin Laden.

    MSNBC is showing live shots of crowded Manhattan sidewalks, scanning their cameras back and forth like they are hoping to catch a blast live. Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but it looks sick. Then they jump to their story of Rove testifying befor the grand jury again. Priorities, and all...

    More
    The Jawa Report here and here.
    GOP in the City even has a chilling email forecasting the attack from within DHS. So much for operational security.
    Newsday
    Michelle Malkin
    In the Bullpen
    The Political Teen has the press conference video
    CounterTerrorism Blog
    Terrorism Unveiled
    Clarity & Resolve thinks the threat might be because of Ramadan.
    Generation Why has similar thoughts.
    Crooks and Liars tries to blame it on Rove. What. A. Tool.
    Democratic Underground likewise, but then, they think air is a Rovian conspiracy.
    Tapscott's Copy Desk theorizes about a OU suicide bomber tie-in. Not completely off the wall, but I think he's stretching it to the limit.
    Parkway Rest Stop finds the most dangerous place to be.
    Ace of Spades gets the final word.

    I think that's about it for the live-blogging and first reactions. I'll try to shoot for some analysis later.


    Update: Analysis posted.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:54 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

    October 03, 2005

    What the Anti-War Left Wants

    I really don't understand these people. They say they want war to cease, and they encourage the terrorists to win. They say they want peace, and they wish the dictator and the radicals to reign over us. They say they are Progressives and secularists, and they allow the fundamentalists to massacre us. They say they promote liberties, and they want ours to vanish. They say they demonstrate for the Iraqi people, and their actions are aimed at plunging the Iraqi people under terror and oppression. What on earth do they want with us?

    I'd say the answer is pretty obvious.

    Read it all, via The Anchoress.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    October 02, 2005

    Zarqawi quits al Qaeda, joins C.O.B.R.A., Part II

    Confederate Yankee has managed to obtain exclusive photos of the two U.S. Marines that al Qaeda claims to have captured in Iraq:

    Via ABC News::

    Al Qaeda said on Sunday it had captured two U.S. marines in western Iraq and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to U.S. forces to release female Sunni Muslim prisoners, a statement posted on a Web site said on Sunday.

    The latest statement came in the midst of a new U.S. offensive in towns in the far west of Iraq to track down al Qaeda militants U.S. forces believe are hiding near the Syrian border.

    "Al Qaeda soldiers succeeded in kidnapping two U.S. marines … and al Qaeda is giving the infidels 24 hours to release female Sunni Muslim prisoners," it said.

    "Or they should not bother to look for their children," said the statement, on a Web site often used by the group.

    The statement said the two marines were captured in the midst of Operation Iron Fist, "in which they (U.S. forces) have been disappointed and have failed."

    It was not immediately possible to verify independently the authenticity of the Web statement, which was signed off with a name that usually accompanies the group's official announcements.

    A spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, said: "I have not heard anything about any of our folks being taken. I would suspect that these are unfounded rumors, as that is what has happened in the past."

    Come up with a new gag.

    We've seen this before.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    September 26, 2005

    29, no 28 protestors

    Abu Azzam, #2 al Qaeda leader in Iraq and one of the "freedom fighters" beloved by Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, has gone off to that big protest in the sky.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    September 24, 2005

    Hamas Contributes to Darwinism

    You've got to give it to Hamas: they throw one interesting rally:

    A truck carrying a group of armed men and makeshift weapons exploded Friday during a Hamas rally in the Gaza Strip, killing at least 19 people and wounding more than 80, according to hospital officials and witnesses.

    Hamas, formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, accused Israel of firing missiles at the vehicle from an unmanned aircraft, but witnesses said the explosion did not leave the telltale crater of a missile strike.

    Palestinian security officials said they believed mishandled homemade explosives in the truck may have ignited, sending shrapnel slicing through a dense crowd of several thousand onlookers gathered in the Jabaliya refugee camp north of Gaza City.

    But just keep remembering that Hamas is just a political party - right, Mr. Galloway?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    September 19, 2005

    Lie Like al-Zarqawi , Squeal Like Ali

    When you have to kidnap, beat and drug your troops to get them to go into battle, I think it is safe to say that the war is not going well for you:

    A suicide bomber captured before he could blow himself up in a Shiite mosque claimed he was kidnapped, beaten and drugged by insurgents who forced him to take on the mission. The U.S. military said its medical tests indicated the man was telling the truth.

    Mohammed Ali, who claimed to be Saudi-born and appeared to be in his 20s, said he managed to flee after another suicide attacker set off his bomb, killing at least 12 worshippers Friday as they left a mosque in the northern city of Tuz Khormato.

    In confession broadcast on state television later that day, Ali told Iraqi interrogators he did not want to bomb the mosque and hoped to go home.

    Results from medical tests on Ali were "consistent with his story and characterization of his treatment," Col. Billy J. Buckner, a U.S. military spokesman said Sunday.

    So much for al-Zaraqawi being "the greatest" if he has to kidnap and drug people to carry out suicide attacks. It seems that the seemingly inexhaustible supply of willing suicide bombers that we westerners have come to fear is exhaustible after all. Some might even be willing to think that this validates the Bush/Rumsfeld "flypaper" strategy.

    Don't let Bill Clinton know.

    Update: Welcome Instapundit readers! You are on an archived page, but if you jump to the main page, you can find out that according to a poll sure to disappoint Kanye West, Black People Don't Hate George Bush, that I have a very good reason (according to most eastern North Carolinians) for targeting the University of Tennessee Law School with a B-29 bomber named "Fifi," and why pouring money in to rebuilding New Orleans is a very short-term project. Be sure to bookmark or blogroll Confederate Yankee, and come back often. Mom would want it that way.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:35 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

    September 11, 2005

    Osama's Mouthpiece


    source: ABC News

    Orange County, CA environmentalist turned al Qaeda terrorist Adam Gadahn has delivered the latest taped communiqué for al Qaeda, threatening Los Angeles and Melbourne.

    Sure, he was brought up a idealistic liberal hippie (goat farm and all), BUT DON'T QUESTION HIS PATRIOTISM!!!

    Michelle Malkin has more in this Oct, 2004 post.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    August 28, 2005

    Iraqi Draft Constitution Signed

    Via CNN:

    BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi constitutional committee signed off on a draft of a constitution Sunday after making some minor amendments, a committee spokesman said.

    The draft, which was signed by the committee, will now go to the National Assembly. The amendments were made in hopes of appeasing the Sunni Arab minority, although government spokesman Leith Kubba said not all Sunnis agreed.

    Hardline Sunnis still object to what they consider two key sticking points; federalism and the formal dissolution of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Shiites and Kurds came up with a compromise delaying any action on these issues until a new assembly--essentially the future government--convenes in December.

    But what does all this mean?
    A couple of things:

    1. It proves that the Iraqi people understand the concept of a representative democracy, even the Sunni population from which the insurgency has evolved. Six of seven known insurgency groups have pledged to vote rather than fight in the October vote

    2. It proves that the three main groups understand compromise. While no arrangement will satisfy all parties, the majority of people seem to accept the constitution in its current form. The question remains whether that majority is "enough." Despite media oversimplification, the Sunni and Shia voting blocks have already proven not to be monoliths, and may sway the outcome of the constitutional referendum scheduled to be held October 15.

    3. If this constitutional draft is defeated in October, the process isn't over. New elections will be held and a new draft constitution will be hammered out. You must remember that it took us over a decade for the 13 colonies to hammer out the United States Constitution and we still had to develop a separate Bill of Rights that we still see a need to amend occasionally.

    As important to many Americans, the ratification of the process will not directly impact the training of Iraqi military and police forces that will one day take over Iraq's security needs. It is hoped that Sunni by-in on the constitutional draft and a ratification of this draft might undercut support for the insurgency and hasten the United States withdrawal, but that was primarily a political concern, not a practical one. Iraqi forces will take over their country's security when they are ready for the job, not when insurgent attacks decrease.

    Personally, I would not be completely disappointed if this draft of the constitution is not ratified. I'm not sold on the merits of federalism, and would like to see the dissolution of the Baath Party as a formal part of the document.

    In any event, I don't have to live with it. Iraqis do. We'll discover their feeling in October.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    August 27, 2005

    Sorry, Abu: Your Travel Agent Has Been Cancelled

    Jihad Tours is going to have to fnd a new way to travel. Via CENTCOM:

    BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition forces killed Abu Khallad, a major facilitator of foreign fighters and suicide bombers into northern Iraq, during operations in Mosul on Aug. 25. Multiple intelligence sources and tips from concerned citizens led multi-national forces to a location in Mosul where known foreign fighter facilitator Khallad, a Saudi national, was located. Upon arrival at that location, multi-national forces stopped his vehicle, a gunfight immediately ensued, and Khallad and an unidentified terrorist were shot and killed.

    "Multiple intelligence sources and tips from concerned citizens" were responsible for taking out a top terrorist. Cool.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:02 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    August 26, 2005

    The Silver Lining

    From comments on Iraq the Model:

    The Silver Lining

    The process of tearing down centuries of animosity between different factions in the ME has started. This process will play itself out of the years ahead of us.

    America and her allies and the people of Iraq should take credit for taking people from all factions and having them sit down together, stepping back and encouraging them to debate, negotiate face to face.

    It is a very noble process that requires patience and most importantly, encouragement to all parties from the rest of the world.

    'Nuff said.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    August 25, 2005

    Catch-and-Release Terrorists

    Via The New Editor:

    About two weeks ago, word came that Nohe's case had been dismissed by a judge on 7 August. The Coalition was livid. According to American officers, solid cases are continually dismissed without apparent cause. Whatever the reason, the result was that less than two weeks after his release from Abu Ghraib, Nohe was back in Mosul shooting at American soldiers.

    LTC Kurilla repeatedly told me of--and I repeatedly wrote about--terrorists who get released only to cause more trouble. Kurilla talked about it almost daily. Apparently, the vigor of his protests had made him an opponent of some in the Army's Detention Facilities chain of command, but had otherwise not changed the policy. And now Kurilla lay shot and in surgery in the same operating room with one of the catch-and-release-terrorists he and other soldiers had been warning everyone about.

    Makes you wish we were still sending them to Abu Ghraib, doesn't it?

    Wll, we still do. And they like it:

    The most serious terrorists do not fear prison here. Captain Jeff VanAntwerp, who commands Alpha Company, recently told me that Iraqis joke among themselves that they would pay 5,000 dinar per night to stay at Abu Ghraib prison. It's air-conditioned, the showers are good, the food is good, and the water is good.

    My, how times have changed.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    August 23, 2005

    Another Small Victory

    Aki via Chrenkoff:

    [One] statement issued by six of the seven Ansar groups promised that there will not be attacks against Americans on the day of the referendum, 'to protect those who go to vote.' 'Voting is a jihad of words and is no different from the jihad of the sword,' the statement said. 'There are no objections to participation in the referendum to show the world our strength and to defeat federalism'.


    The terrorists know their only chance to substantially change their fate now is with a ballot instead of a bullet.

    I would call the acceptance of the inevitability of a vote, and an acknowledgement of their inability to prevent a vote, another small victory against the insurgency in Iraq.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    August 22, 2005

    What Would Zarqawi Do?

    While I'm greatly bemused by Kos's hinted-at circular firing squad plan for the Democratic Party, I am far from content with the way conservatives are limp-wristing the War in Iraq right now.

    A very vocal anti-American and pacifistic minority in the political far, far left believes passionately that we should withdraw all U.S. military forces from Iraq immediately, literally believing that one more American death in this war is a wasted American life. A somewhat larger group believes that we should set a fixed withdrawal date and pull all of our forces out by a pre-determined time. Another large group of Americans feels that we should pull out once some pre-determined conditions have been met.

    These three positions are the only positions that matter in the current political environment, though these three positions are far from equal.

    "Not One More"
    The most radical of the anti-war protestors want the United States to remove all American military forces in an immediate and haphazard retreat. Their stated goal is to save American lives, because "not one more" soldier or Marine should die in Iraq. Some of the fringe elements, such as Cindy Sheehan, even advocate a full withdrawal from Afghanistan as well.

    But what could happen if these protestors got their wish for an unconditional withdrawal?

    Frankly, no one knows for certain.

    While the insurgency has been regularly hyped by the media and are capable of occasionally spectacular attacks, the insurgent movement in Iraq is already close to collapse, as intercepted letters from terrorist leader Abu Mus'ab Zarqawi and terrorist lieutenant Abu Zayd have indicated. A weakened terrorist group with foreign leadership should not be able to win domestically in Iraq against an Iraq military and police force that is increasingly capable of handling it's own affairs. On a straight head to head match-up between Iraqi government and terrorist forces, it is probable that the Iraqi people would destroy the terrorists in their midst, provided they had a chance to get their government established first.

    We are currently still in the process of establishing Iraqi military and police forces. On the plus side, there are no shortage of recruits. On the down side, recruits aren't quite where we would have hoped at this point. We need time to train them, and time to withdraw gradually to let them get established and confident before we leave completely.

    If Cindy Sheehan and her compatriots in the "not one more" movement got their wish for a headlong retreat, the ensuing chaos as unprepared civilian authorities fought insurgents and criminals in a power vacuum, would cost thousands of innocent civilian lives before Iraqi authorities would be able to restore civil order. This is in one of the better scenarios.

    Abu Mus'ab Zarqawi, of course, would have his own plans.

    In a worst-case scenario, sectarian tensions exacerbated by Zaraqawi's terrorists or militias like Muqtada al Sadr's could rip the country apart into tribal and ethnic warfare on par with the genocidal slaughters of Bosnia or Rwanda. At this point, the United States would be forced to reinvade Iraq again to tear the warring parties apart, or allow tens of thousands (perhaps more) to die in a civil war.

    In the rush to recklessly disengage, the far left would leave millions at risk, just as they led 2 million Cambodians to die in the killing fields after the end of the Vietnam war because of our headlong retreat from Southeast Asia. While Cindy Sheehan and her allies cannot see it, their tactics would result in the most deaths of the three major disengagement strategies.

    I doubt this is the legacy the "peace" movement really wants to leave. Perhaps they are just too ignorant to understand their actions.

    "Establish a Timetable"
    A popular option among most moderate Americans, and one than spans party lines, is the idea of establishing a fixed timetable for withdrawal and strictly sticking to it.

    This strategy is not without its merits.

    It allows for an orderly withdrawal of United States forces, it proves to the Iraqi people that we are not imperialists as some fear, and it forces Iraqi government and its security forces to try to be prepared for the handover of security duties as the United States withdraws.

    There is only one real downside to this disengagement strategy, and that is that a fixed timetable encourages terrorists to simply hold their operations while building stockpiles so that they can mount a massive offensive once we've left.

    The hope of this strategy from the terrorist's perspective is that they can simply outwait the American forces that are their greatest threat, and as soon as we've withdrawn, they could launch a "Desert Tet" in an attempt to ignite the same chaos and sectarian violence mentioned previously. The biggest downside is that knowing they can outwait America, they have time to marshal their forces, and rebuild their supply lines. This strategy is less likely to succeed for Abu Mus'ab Zarqawi in the long term than an immediate pullout, but it cold still cause unnecessary mass civilian casualties. The insurgency may have a chance to go out in a devastating blaze of glory, killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. I think most Americans would refer to avoid this option if possible.

    "When the Time is Right"
    The third option is establish a clear set of criteria for what we consider an acceptable set of conditions, and start a phased withdrawal when those conditions are met. It is not important that the public knows exactly what these conditions are; in fact by making these conditions known, it negates them by creating the same scenario above. The terrorists might simply try placate us, artificially creating conditions so that so that we will leave while they regroup.

    But it is important that we have these conditions, and that the public knows we have conditions, and that we withdraw when these conditions are met, and no sooner.

    In all likelihood, the Bush administration has these conditions set, but it has failed to articulate this fact to the general public. The administration must impress upon the public the importance of completing the mission, wile keeping up the pressure upon the insurgency so that when the Iraqi government transitions into the lead security role, it faces a battered insurgency it can finish off on its own terms, rather than a rested and waiting insurgency able to pose a real threat to the future of Iraq.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:48 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    August 08, 2005

    What, Me Worry?

    So, Iran decided to continue down the path of uranium conversion, which many fear might be an early step in developing a nuclear bomb.

    Germany's Joschka Fischer warned of "disastrous consequences" if Iran acquires a bomb.

    What ever could he mean?

    TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran's most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

    "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

    Nah, it shouldn't concern us one bit...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    "George? It's Tony. About that Second Amendment..."

    The Independent today reports claims more than 10,000 Muslims in Britain have had at least basic training in small arms and simple explosives. But it gets worse.

    "There has been a debate on whether we are facing an insurgency or terrorism," said the source, "and the verdict is on the side of an insurgency."

    So, our British allies, which have all but outlawed practical self defense with firearms and even cooking knives, find themselves in the lamentable position of feeling like naked sheep before armed wolves.

    Granted, this story doesn't quite pass the smell test, seeming to be highly sensationalized. 10,000 people who know how to something doesn't equate 10,000 people that will use that knowledge for nefarious purposes. There are tens millions of people in Britain who know both how to drive and how to toss back a pint, but I haven't heard of governmental worries of an insurgency of drunk drivers... though it might explain why they all drive on the wrong side of the road…

    No, I doubt there is a real insurgency or intifada threat to England, but I also know that any threat of that sort is far more likely to succeed in a disarmed society like Britain than it ever would in the United States.

    Remember the North Hollywood shootout? Two heavily-armed criminals with body armor terrorized Los Angeles for 44 minutes, and the LAPD was almost powerless to stop them. Police officers were forced to grab rifles from civilian gun stores, as their police weapons (incidentally, of the same 9x19mm caliber as the pistols and sub-machineguns of British police) were no match for the criminal's armor.

    This was a robbery gone bad, perpetrated by just two men. Now imagine a dozen fireteams of 3-4 terrorists, armed with AK-47s and covered in body armor, set loose upon a major metropolitan city.

    Normal police weapons such as pistols and submachine guns will not workagainst most body armor, even with multiple hits. In return, the 7.62x39mm round of the AK-47 cuts though most police-issue body armor like a hot knife through butter. It has all the makings of a slaughter.

    SWAT teams will not be able to respond quickly due to the chaos, and even in those locations where they can respond, they will respond late (SWAT teams are made up of regular officers who must report to a centralized location to be outfitted before an engagement), and they will be unprepared for a force-on-force battle in the open (most SWAT teams are prepared for CQB assaults on fixed positions) against a trained enemy.

    That leaves the city in question largely defended by under-armed (or in Britain, unarmed) patrol officers, and the citizens that decide that taking action into their own hands is their best chance of survival.

    Now, in which country would these civilians and patrol officers have a better chance of survival?

    English police officers, while brave, would not stand a chance without firearms, and they have little hope of citizens being able to step in to offer credible assistance with their butter knives. Citizen and officer alike would be nearly powerless. They are reduced to waiting until the terrorists run out of ammunition, which isn't exactly a plan I'd endorse.

    American citizens, on the other hand, could potentially help their police, or at the very least might be able to offer up some defense of their own lives. The Second Amendment was designed to help the American people defend themselves against tyranny.

    If there is indeed another terrorist attack in England, I wouldn't be very surprised to see the British people push for a similar right to self-defense.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:20 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    August 05, 2005

    Higher Ground

    Two societies.

    A person in one society who murders innocent civilians is immediately branded a "bloodthirsty terrorist" by his own government. In the other, the person who murders innocent civilians is celebrated as a hero.

    I wonder which of these cultures gets to claim the moral high ground?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    August 03, 2005

    Assault Socks and Assassinations: The Muddled Politics of Counter-terrorism

    A poll conducted by YouGov published in The Economist, shows that 70-percent of Britons support the new "shoot-to-kill" policies put in place in the wake of the 7/7 suicide bombings, even after an unarmed Brazilian electrician was shot eight times after running from the police. The poll was conducted via an online interview of 2,873 British adults, according to Angus Reid Consultants.

    The Belfast Telegraph reports—though I cannot independently confirm—that British police can not only shoot to kill suspected suicide bombers, but they could do so without identifying themselves or challenging a suspected bomber to stop. While sure to rile alarmists, the policy makes perfect tactical sense.

    Undercover officers should not risk the lives of civilians by identifying themselves or asking the suspected bombers to stop, as either of these actions would result in a suicide bomber having one last chance to detonate his explosives.

    While this policy is nothing less than state-supported assassination, it is the correct response. It is better to make the mistake of having three or five or even more innocent people killed in cases of mistaken identity, than letting one suicide bomber detonate on a bus or subway car and kill or wound dozens. After years of being in denial and under-responding to the threat of radical Islam, it seems that Britons have finally learned how to respond to the terrorist threat.

    Or have they?

    Worldnet Daily has confirmed the rumor that at least some British Police departments still don't get it, requiring police SWAT teams to remove their shoes before conducting counter-terrorism raids on British Muslim homes. The guidelines, developed before the recent terror attacks, also prevent Bedfordshire Police from interrupting Muslims at prayer during these raids. Presumably, a terrorist can "stop, drop and pray" to prevent arrest.

    See if you can tell the subtle difference in treatment of a suspected suicide bomber in Britain based upon his location.

    Scenario One: A flat in Luton (Pre-7/7)

    If police are tipped to the location of a suspected suicide bomber who lives in Luton, they must apparently put up a sign in teh neighborhood explaining why there needs to be a raid, and then wait until after dawn before taking off their shoes and walking to the house. Once they reach the house, they will knock respectfully and announce their presence so they will not see Muslim women inappropriately dressed. After police officials verify that officers are clad in stocking feet only, and that all people inside are approropriately dressed, they may enter the home.

    While in the home, they should refrain from touching anything that looks like it might in some way have any religious significance. They may not videotape the premises, nor may they enter bedrooms or bathrooms, nor may they bring in dogs trained to sniff for explosives. Officers should not interrupt any suspect until after they are done with their prayers.

    If they do decide to take a suspect into custody, they should allow him to grab his racksack to take with him before they leave.

    Scenario Two: A London tube station (Post 7/7)

    BANG!

    thump.

    I hope British police organizations can come to a consensus as to which approach will prove more effective before the next wave of suicide attacks.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    August 01, 2005

    And Now For Something...

    ...Completely Stupid.

    "Though we're worried about you murdering dozens of innocent civilians, but we don't want to infringe on your cultural traditions."

    Oi vey...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    July 28, 2005

    “He Hates These Cans!â€

    (h/t: Ace)

    Via the Guardian:

    A press conference organised by the city council took an unexpected twist when the chairman of Birmingham central mosque, Mohammad Naseem, who is known as a moderate voice, attacked the way the bombings investigation had been carried out. Dr Naseem said the government had given the impression Muslims were to be targeted. "Why do we not have an open mind about this?" he asked. "Terrorists can be anybody."

    He had seen no evidence Muslims were responsible for the bombings and attempted attacks. He claimed the four men killed among others on July 7 could have been innocent passengers. [emphasis added]

    Um… yeah.

    It kind of reminds me of that bit of stupidity in The Jerk:


    “He hates these cans!†(get audio clip)

    I liked this load better when Larry was flinging it with both hands last week.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    July 25, 2005

    A Devil's Choice

    There seems to be a lot of second-guessing of Operation Kratos, the London Metropolitan Police policy of shooting suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save civilian lives. The policy became public knowledge this past Friday when a man wearing a heavy padded coat fled police towards a subway less than 24 hours after a series of failed suicide bombings on London subway trains and a bus. The British police fearing a suicide bombing attack, shot him eight times, killing him instantly.

    Tragically, the man, Jean Charles de Menezes, turned out to be a Brazilian electrician guilty at most of having an expired visa and very bad judgment. Hindsight being 20/20, some people are now second-guessing the shoot-to-kill-to-save-lives policy of Operation Kratos.

    Some question why Metro police did not try detain him earlier. Some wonder why he was not shot in an arm or leg to disable him if police thought he was a threat. Some could not understand why police would shoot him, repeatedly, once he went down. Perhaps even more people are incredulous that the police say they did nothing wrong even though an admittedly innocent man died.

    In an effort to cut through some of the confusion, I thought it might be helpful to create a post explaining on a high level how suicide bombs work, and explaining the general philosophy of shoot-to-kill-to-save policies.

    Jihad for Dummies: A Non-technical Primer

    Leaving ideology out of the equation, the defining trait of a suicide bomber is the willingness to personally detonate an explosive device in an attempt to kill others, knowing they will die in the process. While suicide bombers can take many forms, from the WWII-era kamikaze pilots and suicide submariners, to truck and boat bombers, the most common form of suicide bomber is one wearing explosives on his person.

    It's so easy, even a kid can do it.


    Suicide Belts
    As the picture above hints, a suicide belt is among the more popular options for would-be suicide bombers. It is easy to construct, carries a decent payload of explosives, and can be easily concealable under a medium-weight coat, providing it has sufficient padding to break up the tell-tell outline of explosive charges.

    Please note that the explosives on a suicide belt can take up a large part of a bomber's torso.

    A close relative of the suicide belt is the suicide vest.

    Suicide Vests
    Suicide vest are very similar to suicide belts in terms of explosive power, but, the construction of the vests tends to make them more concealable. If you compare the belt designs above (and below) this vest, you'll note that the belts tend to "print," or show very easily though clothing due to sharp edges and angles of parts of the device that tend to catch fabric and betray the presence of the bomb. A vest, as used here, does not print as much as most bomb belts tend to, and is harder for authorities to spot.

    Again, note how much of the body that explosives tend to cover.

    If you think bomber above looks vaguely familiar, it is because you've probably seen him before.


    Set It Off
    Suicide bombers may have a mind of their own, but the explosives do not. Bombs need detonators.

    As the photo above shows, detonators don't have to be elaborate. The pipe-bomb belt in the photo above has a simple plunger-type detonator. The wire from the detonator to the bomb can easily be run down a shirt or coat sleeve to a bomber's hand, where it is easily concealed.

    All a bomber has to do to end his life and the lives of dozens around him is simply clinch his fist, and bring his thumb down.

    Game Over.

    Applied Lessons
    Now you know a little bit about how suicide bomb belts and vests are constructed and commonly detonated, you can begin to develop an appreciation of the situation Metropolitan Police must have encountered this past Friday morning.

    Police staked out a group of houses because they have information that one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before may have a connection to this general location. The very next morning, an man fitting the general age range (15-35) of the average suicide bomber leaves the block of houses wearing a padded coat; quite unusual dress for a humid July morning. He is also carrying a backpack, which were known to have been used in all successful and attempted suicide attacks in London to date.

    The man then boards a bus that the police know leads to a nearby subway station. At this point, police must begin to have strong suspicions that there may be a follow-up attack in the works. At the subway station, the man, for reasons as yet unclear jumps the turnstiles and begins running for a train, refusing police calls to halt. The police run after him. As he enters a subway car, he trips and falls.

    Now imagine you are the police officer who has had his city attacked twice by suicide bombers in the past few weeks, including four times in the past 24 hours. Keep in mind that you know exactly what could happen if you shoot into a suicide vest. Keep in mind what exactly what could happen if the man on the ground has a detonator under his thumb. Know that if you fire one man will die. If you don't fire, dozens could die.

    Oh, and you have about second to make your decision

    Glance quickly at the dozens of fearful citizens around you... what do you do?

    Dozens of lives versus one. A Devil's Choice, but a choice that had to be made, and in this context, it appears the decision was made correctly.

    Update: This post's description of suicide vests has drawn the attention of Clinton W. Taylor of The American Spectator, in an article called Prometheus, Deterred. I'd encourage my readers to check out Mr. Taylor's article. I'd also encourage A.S. readers to visit the front page of this blog for more breaking content.


    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:01 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    July 24, 2005

    A Totally Different War

    Via Instapundit:

    "Let's support our troops. Bring them home." Please don't ever say those words again. Nothing is so disheartening to our troops who are in harm's way than to hear our own citizens say things like that.

    On June 16, 2004, I willingly said goodbye to my wife and parents in a parking lot at Fort Drum, N.Y., not knowing if I would ever see them again. I don't expect any kinds of praise for this or special thanks because that is my job, and I knowingly volunteered for it. I never would have done that if I did not believe that I was defending this great country of ours and all those in it.

    Read the whole thing.

    Lt. David Lucas, who wrote this editorial, won a Bronze Star for his role in a dramatic hostage rescue.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    July 23, 2005

    Slow Police Response Jeopardized Lives

    London Metropolitan Police are now saying that the south Asian man wearing a heavy coat on a muggy warm day who ran from police into the Tube the day after botched suicide attacks, tripped and was shot in the head is not related to the recent rash of Islamic terrorism.

    Via BBC News:


    A Scotland Yard statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

    "We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

    "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

    How should I respond?

    You don't give children matches. You don't attempt to rewire your house without shutting off your electricity. And you certainly don't run from police when dressed suspiciously like a suicide bomber who attacked the same area the day before. Stupidity kills.

    So does the unwillingness to follow established doctrine.

    Operation Kratos, the operational plan and training of Metropolitan Police officers by the world's foremost experts on suicide bombers, failed yesterday. It did not fail because the man shot turned out to be an idiot rather than a suicide bomber. It failed because the man penetrated the perimeter and made it to the train before being shot. He never should have made it that far.

    Commuter Mark Whitby captured the attention of the media yesterday with his dramatic recreation of events:

    “As the man leapt on the train I looked at his face. He looked just like a cornered rat ... like a cornered fox, absolutely petrified.

    “Then he tripped. One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him — bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

    “Five shots and he's dead. It was no further than five yards from me. It was like a nightmare — a very distressing sight.â€

    Some are sure to vilify the police and their commanders for the decision to employ shoot-to-kill/head shot tactics, just as they would assuredly blame the authorities for not firing fast enough if the dead man had been a terrorist and had been able to detonate a bomb as he was falling. Mrs. Whitby would have found the situation far more distressing if she was spending today waiting for a call from the corner's office that they'd been able to locate the majority of Mr. Whitby.

    Terrorism is a dirty business, and unfortunately, fighting terrorism can be bloody as well. It takes courage, dedication, and quick reactions. The Metropolitan Police failed yesterday, not because they lacked courage or dedication or because they shot the wrong man, but because they did not shoot him fast enough.

    Operation Kratos, the shoot-to-kill policy designed to save London commuters from suicide bombers is a sound, intelligent policy, but it cannot work if the police are going to second-guess themselves.

    Real suicide bombers are likely to take advantage of yesterday's justifiable shooting and the hesitation that might creep into the mind of the next Metropolitan police officer that is faced with a similar situation.

    Everyone knows that the police are deadly serious now. The next suspect to run toward a bus or subway will likely be a terrorist intent on finishing his mission as he dies.

    I have a bit of advice for the London Metro police offices on call that day: squeeze, don't jerk the trigger. You may kill indeed kill someone who isn't a terrorist... but if you're wrong and don't fire on a real terrorist, hundreds could pay for your hesitation.

    Sight. Squeeze. Save lives.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:08 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 22, 2005

    The Consequences of Harboring Hate

    Sooner or later all societies are going to realize that feeding hatred is an unsustainable idea, for hatred is unpredictable, disloyal, irrational, and it will always find a way to turn back on you.

    This attack was targeted against westerners, but the attack happened in Egypt. Next time it could be Egyptian mothers, Jordanian daughters, or Saudi sons, who weren't faithful enough, pious enough, or were simply in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

    That's the funny thing about cancer. Even if it wins, it dies, and the question is whether you will allow yourself to die with it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:52 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    That's Why I Say Hey Man, Nice Shot


    Next? A British counterterrorist trains.

    An article one week ago today in the Scotsman revealed that London Metro Police could be given orders to fire at the heads of suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save lives in a plan called Operation Kratos:

    Normal firearms rules mean officers fire at the chests of targets, with the intention of stopping and incapacitating, but not directly aiming to kill.

    But the Met has been advised by Israeli security officials that this is not adequate, since even after several shots they can still be capable of triggering an explosive device.

    Shooting at the chest also runs the risk of triggering explosives strapped to a terrorist's body.

    Shots to the head, by contrast, kill immediately, almost instantly causing the nervous system to shut down, preventing any detonation.

    Today saw dramatic evidence that that policy was indeed in effect.

    The Muslim Council of Britain was not thrilled with the idea of police officers having a green light to shoot suspected suicide bombers. They are apparently worried that trigger-happy police may kill innocent Muslims by mistake. Perhaps they should think about persuading their fellow Muslims not to turn themselves into "personal demolition experts," and turn upon the radicals jeopardizing their culture instead of letting them rant unopposed.

    In the meantime, the new rules of engagement outlined in Operation Kratos may be the last line of defense for British mass transit. One can only assume similar plans are in effect on this side of the Atlantic.

    We'll know for certain once the ACLU sues to stop them.

    Update: No wonder Muslims are upset!
    According to al-Jazeera, the man British police shot was killed for merely trying to board a train.
    (H/T: Bluto at The Jawa Report)

    Further Update: The man who ran turns out to be a Brazilian electrician. The family of this man is, of course, threatening to sue. The British Police have not backed down from the right response.

    Good.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:46 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 21, 2005

    Other things I don't Consent To

    Via Drudge:

    I do/don't have a problem with whiny NY immigrant rights activist Tony Lu's t-shirts bearing the text, "I do not consent to being searched."

    Ace said it quite well when he made the observation that while police look out for our lives, The Reality-Based Community Opts For Fantasy:


    It's very simple. There are some on the left that don't like the real world. They'd prefer a different world, one in which terrorism wasn't occurring, and if it were perpetrated, then perpetrated by White Male Corporate Pigs rather than Oppressed Heroic Multicultural Victims that they're supposed to feel solidarity with.

    So liberals choose denial. They "don't consent to being searched."

    I Choose Something Else.

    Update: Here's a visual link...

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:12 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

    "Abdul, my gun is too hot!"

    Somehow, I just can see this being a valid complaint.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    London Transportation PSA

    According to Fox News, the explosives found today in London's four terrorist bombs were made of TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a mix of hydrogen peroxide, paint thinner, and sulphuric or hydrochloric acid. The formula has been around for 110 years, and is popular with terrorists, but has been known to be very unstable. According to Wikipedia, TATP has killed at least 40 Palestinian terrorists over the years as they tried to handle it. TATP is very shock sensitive.

    With that knowledge in hand, Londoners are better armed with the knowledge that they, too, can help prevent terrorism.

    Should you be in London, and happen to see a swarthy looking fellow carrying a backpack and looking somewhat nervous, push him in front of a bus.

    If he detonates on contact with the bus, he is—was indeed a terrorist. Of course, this advice is hardly foolproof. Terrorists are highly sophisticated, and are therefore known to change their tactics to confuse authorities.

    That in mind, if you should happen to be in London, and happen to see a swarthy-looking fellow (or a Jamaican, or someone from Asia, or a scummy-looking white guy, or a Hispanic with a Chicago accent, or George Galloway) carrying a backpack (or a briefcase, or a pizza box, or a copy of the Guardian) and looking relaxed (or content, or annoyed, or French), push him in front of a bus. If he detonates on contact with the bus, he is—was indeed a terrorist.

    This advice is not always applicable.

    If you "like to take the Tube" (a phrase that means something completely different in San Francisco), a bus may not always be available. Adapt. If you see a man—or maybe a woman, or a particuarly obnoxious child—carrying something, or looking like he might plan on carrying something, push him or her in front of the train. If he detonates on contact with the train, he or she is—was indeed a terrorist.

    Strike a blow for jolly old England... and watch your back when standing near the curb.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    July 20, 2005

    Fat Man and Fatwa Boy

    I'd been intent on steering clear of Congressman Tom Tancredo's recent comments about possible responses to an Islamic terrorist attack on multiple American cities involving multiple nuclear weapons. The comments were made while a guest on Pat Campbell's AM radio show:

    "Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

    "You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

    "Yeah," Tancredo responded.

    The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

    Hugh Hewitt, though made the following challenge:


    I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT…

    …We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.

    A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue.

    Hugh, the last time I checked, every "responsible American" is still entitled to his own opinion, yet you present your opinion on this matter as fact, and everyone else's opinion that may differ is presented as wrong.

    As experts studying Islamic jihad are far better versed in the subject, and some feel that Islam and violent jihad are so entwined as to be inseparable, I'd suggest that your decree that we are categorically not at war with Islam is wishful thinking unsupported by fact. At this moment, we simply do not know if we are in a war with Islam.

    So-called Islamic moderates seem unwilling to choose sides, and extremists seem to have the greatest voice in setting policies and shaping public opinion in predominately Islamic communities. I'd like to think that we are only opposing extremists, but the fact remains that we simply do not know. Mr. Hewitt, you are wrong when you say, "The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong."

    Just hoping something to be true does not make it so, Hugh. We do not know it for a fact any more than heliocentrists "knew" that the universe revolved around the Earth. The historical evidence, it seems, indicates just the opposite.

    Islam had a history almost a millennia-and-a-half long of near-constant warfare with its neighbors. Even charitable biographies of the prophet Mohamed acknowledge that he led his followers into combat more than 20 times and ordered captured prisoners executed, including women and children. Islam is decidedly not a "religion of peace." It never has been. Any attempt to say otherwise is historically ignorant revisionism.

    The near universal Muslim desire to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth shows us that Muslims are willing to wipe out entire nations and commit genocide if they can. Why is it inconceivable to you, Hugh, that if we show ourselves to be weak, that they won't try to utterly destroy us well?

    Congressman Tancredo was talking about a hypothetical situation where Muslim terrorists attack multiple major U.S. cities with thermonuclear weapons, rendering hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans dead, and tens of millions wounded. To think that the American people would not demand a proportional response is unrealistic.

    Saudi Arabia is the spiritual and financial heart of Islamic extremism. It is the most logical target for a proportional response. If Mecca is not your preferred target Mr. Hewitt, please offer an alternative target. Riyadh? Medina? Perhaps Jeddah, just to let them know we'll get that close to their holiest of holies?

    If a military response to the nuclear murder of millions of Americans is not acceptable to you, do you care to offer another appropriate response? Offer up a solution of your own and I'll gladly discuss its merits with you. So far, Mr. Tancredo's off-the-cuff response is as appropriate as any other option I've seen placed upon the table.

    The destruction of the holy center of Islam may not endear us to mainstream Islam, but then, neither has the billions of dollars we've invested in their culture. If we let it be known as a matter of policy that we will respond to nuclear attacks on our heartland with nuclear attacks in their heartland, perhaps then it might inspire a bit more vigorous pursuit of terrorists within Islamic cultures. Call it inspiration. Call it fear. In any event, it is motivation that Islamic culture currently seems to lack.

    I'm quite willing to consider other options, and readily admit that Congressman Tancredo's option is probably not the best solution, but don't just tell me I'm wrong, give me a more valid option.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 05:53 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

    July 15, 2005

    "Illegal War" Myth Debunked by Court?

    I just finished reading the decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (thank you, Michelle Malkin), along with Paul Mirengoff's review at Powerline. As “legalese†sometimes appears a bit murky, I felt a bit better that Paul seemed to take away many of the same the same things that I did (though I must admit I missed a few things on my first reading that only became apparent after reading his comments).

    One thing I did find interesting in the opinion that I don't think anyone has mentioned was the importance the court placed on the joint resolution passed by Congress in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, which authorized the President:

    "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, of persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided†the attacks and recognized the President's “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."

    The Court then goes on to state:

    …the joint resolution "went as far toward a declaration of war as it might, and as far or further than Congress went in the Civil War, the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, the Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, and numerous other conflicts."

    The Court mentioned the resolution is the context that Hamdan claimed that Bush violated the separation of powers, which the court rejected. But at the same time the Court rejected Hamdan's appeal, wasn't it also rejecting the "illegal war" myth of the far left?

    By citing in their decision that the post 9/11 joint resolution "went as far toward a declaration of war as it might, and as far or further than" many other wars in our nations past, the Court validated the legal standing of the Global War on Terror. In so do, doesn't it therefore invalidate the myth perpetrated by the far left that President Bush was fighting an "illegal war?"

    Seems like it to me, but I'm open to other interpretations.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    July 14, 2005

    Two Minutes

    As Britons are urged to give two minutes of silence at noon today to mark the one week anniversay of suicide bombings in London, one can only assume that the folks at the International Freedom Center will be hard at work planning an exhibit showcasing exactly why Londoners deserved to die for British Imperialism. *

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

    July 13, 2005

    Report Discredits F.B.I. Claims of Abuse at Guantánamo Bay

    What Chimpy McHalliburton wingnut Freepers would write such a headline?

    The New York Times.

    Senator Durbin, how do you like your crow?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Follow the Jawa

    Ever since The Jawa Report went group blog and I got a day job that discourages 9-5 blogging, Rusty & Co. have occasionally written the articles I wanted to before I got a chance. The Jawas did it not once, but twice today.

    The first discusses the shock of Leeds-area Muslims in discovering that the terrorists came from their midst. Presumably, they were expecting to find that the suicide bombers were Episcopals.

    The second discusses the horrible, if somewhat predictable backlash against Muslims within Britain following last week's homicide bombing, focusing on the beating death of Kamal Raza Butt at the hands of English teens. There have also been at least two mosques firebombed and thousands of threats issued against British Muslims.

    I feel sympathy for the vast majority of innocent Muslims, but by allowing radical Islam to flourish with little or no internal opposition, they've brought this hatred upon themselves. I'm sure that the vast majority of Germans alive in the 1940s were wonderful people, but we firebombed the civilians of Dresden just the same. If moderate Islam does not eradicate the terrorists within its midst, we will assuredly be forced to end Islam at large.

    Update:

    Dresden, 1945 or Riyadh, 2010?
    Islamic moderates will ultimately decide.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:40 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 11, 2005

    Balkan Explosives in London Blast?

    The London Times is reporting that the explosives used in the London terrorist attacks were possibly imported military-grade high explosives:

    Similar components from the explosive devices have been found at all four murder sites, leading detectives to believe that each of the 10lb rucksack bombs was the work of one man. They also believe that the materials used were not home made but sophisticated military explosives, possibly smuggled into Britain from the Balkans.

    “The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying,†said Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, the chief of the French anti-terrorist police, who was in London to help Scotland Yard.


    I guess I might have been wrong when I said: "There also seems to be a relatively low number of fatalities considering the density of humanity in the areas targeted, and I am forced to think that these were low-grade explosive devices, quite possibly something like blackpowder pipe bombs like those used by American anti-abortion fanatic Eric Robert Rudolph. As horrible and tragic as the deaths and injuries are, the number and severity of wounds doesn't seem to indicate that military grade explosives were used. If Semtex or C4 or other military grade explosives had been used, I would think that the casualties would have been far, far worse."

    I'd be glad to be wrong on this, but it still doesn't explain how forty pounds of military explosives managed to cause so few casualties in such a densely-packed environment. It could have been far worse. It should have been far worse. London was very lucky.

    Or perhaps, just perhaps, someone was looking out for London.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Cowboys and Muslims

    At some point I'm sure most of you have seen this circulating in your email:

    At a small terminal in the Texas Panhandle, three strangers are awaiting their shuttle flight. One is a Native American passing through from Oklahoma. Another, a local ranch hand on his way to Ft. Worth for a stock show. The third passenger is an Arab student, newly arrived at the Texas oil patch from the Middle East.

    To pass the time they strike up a conversation on recent events, and the discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon the Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout Muslim. The conversation falls into an uneasy lull.

    The cowpoke leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table, tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind outside blows tumbleweeds and the old windsock flaps, but no plane comes.

    Finally, the Native American clears his throat and softly, he speaks: 'Once my people were many, Now we are few.'

    The Muslim raises an eyebrow and leans forward, 'Once my people were few,' he sneers, 'and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?'


    The Texan shifts the toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his stetson says, 'That's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet.'

    That is the joke, but like many, it has a strong base in reality.

    I read Lee Harris' excellent article "War in Pieces: The Blood Feud" this past Friday at Tech Central Station, and the case he presented regarding the apparent tribal nature of terrorist warfare made perfect sense.

    But how can an enemy hoping to wage a blood feud hope to compete against a foe willing to respond with a conventional war? As Afghanistan and Iraq's rouge terrorist-supporting regimes have found out, “not too good.â€

    What's more, American's have been fighting—and winning—these kinds of wars for our entire history, as Arnold Kling correctly notes in his TCS article today, “Terrorism Lessons from 1870.†Kling only tracks our success in conventional warfare against feudal warfare back to 1870, but in reality, we have been fighting this kind of warfare successfully for our entire history, dating back to before the French and Indian War of the 1750s.

    Americans need to know that despite the attempts of the American left to lose the War on Terror (and make no mistake, insisting on a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is just that), this asymmetrical versus conventional warfare is the kind of combat at which Americans have consistently excelled for hundreds of years.

    We can play very well at “Cowboys and Muslims,†should it come to that.

    I just hope Muslim culture can reform itself before we get to the point that that would become necessary.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 10, 2005

    UK Terror Arrests

    Breaking on Fox News is the arrest of three suspects under anti-terrorism laws at Heathrow Airport in London. Obviously, it is too early to officially say this is related to the bombings in London earlier this week, but I somewhat doubt they're targeting anyone else.

    CNN has more.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:22 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 09, 2005

    Iraqi Army Progress

    I missed this roundup of progress from the Iraqi army earlier in the week, but Mustang 23 didn't.

    Mustang 23 is one of our milbloggers "over there," so I tend to trust his judgement.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Baghdad Progress?

    Via MSNBC:

    "...violent incidents in the Iraqi capital are declining since Iraq's U.S.-backed forces launched an operation against insurgents in the city six weeks ago.

    The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. William G. Webster Jr., said car bombings had dropped from 14 to 21 a week in May to about seven or eight a week now. But he said it was “very difficult to know†whether the insurgency has been broken."

    I'll offer the guess that the insurgency is far from broken, but it may well be possible that the Baghdad insurgents have reduced bombings for a number of reasons.

    • They may be low logistically, either in detonators, munitions, or transport options. I view this option as unlikely, but possible.
    • They may be low on bomb-builders. As arrests have increased it is possible that the insurgency in Baghdad is facing a manpower shortage. This is more likely than a shortage in munitions, but is still probably not the root cause of decreased bombings.
    • The most disturbing option is that the insurgency has cut down on minor operations to focus on a major attack. While I doubt that this is the case, it is not inconceivable.
    • The most hopeful option is that the native Iraqi insurgents have started to realize that the random murder of Iraqi citizens is not breaking their resolve, and instead, it is hardening them against the insurgency. If this is the reason for declining attacks, it could mean that at least the native insurgents may be considering other options, including a political solution.

    I think it premature to declare Baghdad insurgency "broken," but these are certainly developments worth watching.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    July 08, 2005

    Keystone al Qaeda

    Via My Way News:

    The bombs that destroyed three London Underground cars and a double-decker bus each weighed less than 10 pounds and could be carried in a backpack, police said Friday. Police said the bodies of 49 people had been recovered, but warned that the number of deaths would rise.

    An explosives expert said they were likely crude homemade devices set off with a simple timer. Experts say Thursday's attacks had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida strike, and authorities were gathering evidence on the ground and investigating a purported claim of responsibility.

    Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police, said no arrests had been made but officials have "lots and lots" of leads.

    Home Secretary Charles Clarke, the Cabinet minister responsible for law and order, said it was a "strong possibility" that al-Qaida or a sympathetic group had carried out the attack.

    I've maintained since the first details of the London terrorists attacks started coming to light that these bombing appeared to be the work of amateur terrorists. The crude construction of the bombs was apparent yesterday. Failed detonations, the erratic timing of the detonations, the relatively low number of fatalities and a potential accidental detonation by one bomber are not indicative of professional terrorists.

    London's bombers can hate with the best of radical Islamists, but fortunately, they lack technical expertise. They are not al Qaeda (I'll let other argue "al Qaeda" vs. "al Qaida"). They are inept. They are cowards. If it weren't for the fact that they still managed to kill with their bumbling attempts, they would even be clownish.

    UPDATE: Cliff May at The Corner isn't very impressed with the wannabes, either.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    Terrorist(s) Killed in the London Bombings?

    The more details come out about the four bombs that went of in London yesterday (and the two that didn't), the more it sounds like we are dealing with terrorists with a minimum of training. 1/3 of the known bombs failed to detonate, of those 40%, or 3 of 5, failed to detonate in the Underground (subway) attacks. One may have even killed one or more terrorists in a premature detonation.

    The attacks were not nearly simultaneous as many claimed in the confusion of yesterday's horrific events, with an ABC News article saying the Underground attacks were spaced out over 18 minutes. This seems an excessively long period of time if the intention of the attacks was to kill and maim as many as possible. Perhaps they were confident that even with the delay between explosions that people would not have been able to evacuate the subways in time, but I find it more plausible, due to the fact that two bombs failed to detonate at all, that their timing devices were crude and imprecise.

    The crudeness of the timers seems more likely if this story reported by the New York Times is true, that the fourth device, the one that blew up the bus, apparently blew up prematurely while in route to its primary target.

    If this story of a premature detonation turns out to be true—and we're talking about a New York Times story instead of a blog entry, so there is room for doubt—then there is a strong possibility that the bomber and any accomplices traveling with him may have been among those killed in the blast.

    If one or more bombers were on the bus when it exploded, DNA and forensic evidence recovered from the crime scene may be well on the way to identifying the bombers, and by association, the cell which carried out the attack. I do not know how fast DNA matching and forensic science takes to work, but I'd be willing to bet that once Scotland Yard has a lead, that it will take very little time to make arrests for these attacks.

    Justice will be served.


    UPDATE: According to CNN a potential bomber may have indeed been killed in the blast:

    A passenger who survived the bus blast said he saw an "extremely agitated" man rummaging in a bag just seconds before the explosion, the UK's Press Association reported.

    The bus blast occurred about 30 minutes after the last train explosion. Investigators found fragments of timing devices that may have been used in the three train blasts, but no such fragments have been found in the bus explosion, U.S. law enforcement sources told CNN.

    "The cause of the bus explosion right now is problematic. We don't know yet what we're dealing with as the cause there," one law enforcement official told CNN.

    This new eyewitness information does not seem to confirm this was a suicide bombing, nor does it rule out the possibility of an accidental detonation. It does, however, seem to show the probability that a terrorist was among the fatalities.

    UPDATE: It seems that the terrorists involved in this attack are most likely not Methodists.

    Who knew?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:30 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

    July 07, 2005

    Amateur Terrorists?

    Bloomberg news quotes one London fireman as saying that they've discovered five explosive devices in the London subway network. If this is true, and there were in fact seven bombs that went off, it would indicate than nearly half of the devices planted failed to detonate.

    There also seems to be a relatively low number of fatalities considering the density of humanity in the areas targeted, and I am forced to think that these were low-grade explosive devices, quite possibly something like blackpowder pipe bombs like those used by American anti-abortion fanatic Eric Robert Rudolph. As horrible and tragic as the deaths and injuries are, the number and severity of wounds doesn't seem to indicate that military grade explosives were used. If Semtex or C4 or other military grade explosives had been used, I would think that the casualties would have been far, far worse.

    This has all the earmarks of an unsophisticated homegrown attack. The low-grade materials apparently used, and the fact that so many of the devices failed to work, would seem to indicate a zealous but unsophisticated terrorist plot carried out by a small group with limited access and capability.

    I doubt this attack was carried out by al Qaeda infiltrators as were the attacks of September 11. I'd be very surprised if these amateur bomb-builders, when captured, come from anywhere other than England's own “loyal†Muslim immigrant community.

    UPDATE: Some are considering this a "typical al-Qaeda" attack. I think al Qaeda has more competent bomb builders than this group, where almost half the bombs reported failed to explode. I certainly think the group behind this attack sympathizes with al Qaeda, but that does not mean they are nearly as technically proficient.

    ANOTHER UPDATE: A group calling itself "Secret Group of Al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe" is taking responsibilty for the attacks. Sounds like "wannabes" to me, though murderous wannabes, as the death toll has now surpassed 40 and 300 are reported injured.

    A top British terrorism expert says that this looks like an attempt to recreate the Madrid bombings. I'd say that was rather obvious.

    Michael Clarke, director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College London, says that for the six bombs he thought there were at the time, that there would have to be 24 suspects to carry out the attacks. So using that ratio of four attacker per bomb, was there a cell of 48 terrorists operating here if there were indeed 12 bombs (seven detonated, five non-detonated)?

    I'm sorry Mr Clarke, but I'm not buying your numbers. I see no reason why it would take 24 men to plant six bombs (and yes, that includes support roles)

    YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Wretchard and a few others have said that they feel that this attack is quite sophisticated due to the near-simultaneous nature of the attacks. Again, like Michael Clarke's “large cell†theory of a large number of bombers, I simply don't buy it.

    It is far too easy to rig time-type detonators to go of simultaneously or nearly so, and for cell phone type detonators commonly used in Iraq and I believe in the Madrid bombing, one terrorist merely has to run through a speed dial to set off a series of explosions.

    I am not a terror expert, nor do I play one on television, but those that do play expert seem to be prone towards giving complex explanations rather than simple ones. If you listen to the “experts†today, you will probably here that a composite view that this was a very sophisticated attack carried out by a well-trained and well-armed terrorist cell with excellent counter security to avoid detection.

    Once all is said and done, however, I would find it far more likely that the attack will be traced back to no more than a dozen legal Muslim immigrants operating out of a fundamentalist London mosque.

    They will simply know from living there when the morning rush hour was (that takes brilliant surveillance? Hardly), and we'll probably find that they were able to find pipe-bomb building instructions on the Internet. The only difficult part of this plan was obtaining explosives, and I'll be willing to bet that they explosives used were purchased legally or cooked up by the terrorists themselves.

    Time may very well prove that these were indeed complex operations. It is undoubtedly good for the psyche to believe these kinds of attacks are difficult to pull off. But they don't have to be.

    Terrorism need not be sophisticated, and it rarely is.

    FURTHER UPDATE: The number of blasts has been revised down to three subway attacks and one bus attack. Trains were hit between stations, and as passengers exited from stations on either side it made it look like there were attacks than there actually were.

    ABC News has confirmed that two unexploded bombs and parts of the timing devices from the bombs that detonated have been recovered.

    This is down from the original claim carried by Bloomberg that five bombs had been recovered, and shows that at least 1/3 of the bombs used failed to work.

    Does this prove my earlier contention that this was the work of al Qaeda "wannabes" and not experienced terrorists? Perhaps not, but the fact that bombs were recovered quickly and intact should help British authorities to narrow down a list of suspects rather quickly. Once they make arrests--and I have every confidence that they will--we'll see for certain who is behind these attacks.

    Until then, my prayers and support are firmly with the British people.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:52 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

    June 21, 2005

    Red-on-Red

    Do you remember what I recently said here and here about splits in the different elements of the insurgency?

    It is happening here.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    June 15, 2005

    Divide & Conquer

    As terrorist attacks by the insurgency are estimated to be peaking, The Iraqi government seems to be using diplomacy in an effort to drive a wedge between native Iraqi insurgents and their foreign al Qaeda allies:
    BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. and Iraqi officials are considering difficult-to-swallow ideas — including amnesties for their enemies — as they look for ways to end the country's rampant insurgency and isolate extremists wanting to start a civil war.

    Negotiations have just begun between U.S. and Iraqi officials on drafting an amnesty policy, which would reach out to Iraqi militants fighting U.S. forces, say officials in both the Iraqi and American governments.

    But foreign extremists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, responsible for Iraq's bloodiest attacks, would not be offered any amnesty, the Iraqi and U.S. authorities told The Associated Press in recent days.

    The amnesty proposal is seen as a key weapon to split the insurgency between Iraqi and non-Iraqi lines and further alienate foreign fighters like al-Zarqawi.


    So what does this really mean?

    Negotiated solutions via internal politics were always the preferred option in deciding the future of Iraq from the coalition's standpoint, but Sunnis did not want to cede the power and control they wielded under Saddam's regime. Fighting against this loss of power is the basis for the Sunni-led insurgency. The domestic element of the insurgency was their way of trying to leverage a better position for themselves than they thought they would have in a post-Saddam Iraq.

    In contrast, Iraqi Kurds and Shiites were aware early on that their best prospects for the future are tied to the success of the fledgling Iraqi national government.
    Insurgent attacks by primarily Sunni insurgents just went to reinforce this belief.

    As it became increasingly apparent that the fledgling Iraqi government would not bow down to the insurgency and elections were successfully held, it buoyed faith among most of the people that they could build a better future for Iraq. The upswing in insurgent violence around the elections and since has not seemed to dissuade the Iraqi people's attempt for democracy; instead it seems to have tempered it.

    The insurgency, sensing that they are losing the support of the Iraqi people, has attempted to bomb the civilians into compliance with their wishes. But every new insurgent attack against civilians seems to have had the opposite effect; instead of being intimidated, the Iraqi people are becoming increasingly fed up with the insurgency.

    And the insurgency is indeed having problems.

    The insurgency was never a monolith, with Sunni Iraqi insurgents fighting for power within a new Iraq having completely different goals than the foreign fighters of al Qaeda intent on killing infidels (Iraqi and foreign) for their brand of radical Islam.

    While the growing dissatisfaction with the insurgency matters little to the foreign jihadists (other than making things more difficult), the pressure is beginning to wear on Sunni insurgents that see their guerilla military efforts accomplishing very few, if any of their goals. A political option is increasingly in their best interests, as continued attacks only erode both their manpower and political position.

    It is into this gap between al Qaeda's foreign fighters and the Sunni insurgency that the Iraqi government intends to drive a wedge. By offering amnesty for Sunni insurgents who lay down their arms, the Iraqi government is giving them a chance to join the political process instead of fighting against it.

    The much talked about tipping point will occur when Sunni leaders in the insurgency realize that it is in their best interests to fight for their people in the political arena instead of the streets of Iraq. Once the Sunni insurgency is dissolved, an isolated al Qaeda insurgency cannot long stand. Insurgencies only succeed when they have the support of the people, and without assistance from Sunnis, al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda in Iraq will be living on borrowed time.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    June 07, 2005

    Building Victory

    Fallujah, Iraq – Critics of the attack on Fallujah last November often invoked the damning (and mythical) utterance from Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village to save it." Never mind that the alternative to the massive assault on the city backed by artillery, tanks, and aircraft would either be a huge loss of American lives or simply allowing the al-Qaeda cut-throat al-Zarqawi to keep it as the terrorist headquarters for all of Iraq. Forget that the city was already crumbling from the neglect of Saddam Hussein's regime. Today Fallujah is on the mend and then some, a symbol of renewal and American-Iraqi cooperation.

    …Restoring and expanding access to electricity is top priority here, more so than access to running water because Iraqis pump water up from the mains to tanks on their roof. No electricity, no working pumps.
    Williams and his counterpart at the Corp of Engineers, Maj. Daniel Hibner, don't have the simple goal of restoring pre-war Iraq. "The baseline is crappy so why go back to that?" says Williams. "We did do some damage but the repairs are taking these people far beyond where they were."

    …"We're certainly not trying to turn this into the equivalent of an American city," says Williams. "But it will be first class for an Iraqi one and that's going to win the hearts and minds of the people." From the smiles, the thumbs up, the waves, and the cries of "Hello!" in Arabic I got from the children in even the worst parts of the city, I'd say they're being won.

    Thanks to Glenn Reynolds we get to see a perspective of the Iraqi War that the news media seems all too willing to ignore, that of an Iraq literally rising from the ashes of Saddam's neglect and al-Zarqawi's hatred. Terror will lose in Iraq. It has no choice, for while al Qaeda can threaten and kill, it can offer no hope and build no future.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 30, 2005

    American "Hostage" Indicted

    Naturalized US citizen Mohammed Monaf was the sole American taken hostage with three Romanian journalists in Baghdad several months ago. A couple of weeks ago, all four hostages were released. Romanian prosecutors have now issued an warrant for Monaf's arrest on suspicion that he was involved in the kidnapping of the three Romanian journalists.

    An inside job? Read all the rest all at the Jawa Report.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 26, 2005

    Crapperquiddick : Fake, But Accurate...But Fake?

    So we've gone from Newsweek's flushed Koran story being a supposed true story of religious intolerance that started a riot that left 15 people dead, to a fake story that didn't cause the riots that left 15 people dead, to a fake story that didn't cause riots that left no one dead.

    I supposed all that is left is to tell us that Afghanistan itself was made up... Yup. It figures.

    This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 25, 2005

    Prayers For Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

    al Qaeda in Iraq is asking the Muslim world to pray for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who they claim has been wounded, "in the path of God." I'd like to make the observation that if al-Zarqawi was in the path of god, he'd be but a burnt cinder by now, or perhaps a burnt cinder covered with boils.

    Nevertheless, I am hoping that al-Zarqawi survives his wounds. I want him to fully recover, for I have other prayers for him.

    I pray al-Zaraqwi leaves Iraq, and slyly retires Devon, England to jog through gorse bushes on Woodbury Common.

    I pray his desire for a vacation leads him to scenic Uige, Angola.

    But most of all, I pray for al-Zarqawi, stuffed on eastern NC barbeque and drunk on Manischewitz, to be caught as the "bottom" in Pam Anderson/Tommy Lee-type video with the brutish Muqtada al-Sadr. I pray that the video is broadcast on al Jazeera--just after al-Sadr is diagnosed with both Chlamydia trachomatis and an untreatable and highly-contagious form of scrapie.

    Perhaps al Qaeda should be more specific in their prayer requests.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 19, 2005

    Give Them Equality

    Via CNN:
    ...In a nearly 15-hourlong committee hearing, the most contentious issue was the role of women in combat.

    The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat.

    "Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-New York, who sponsored the amendment.

    It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced narrower language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions.

    The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.

    "We're not taking away a single prerogative that the services now have," McHugh said.

    Democrats opposed the amendment, saying it would tie the hands of commanders who need flexibility during wartime. They accused Republicans of rushing through legislation without knowing the consequences or getting input from the military.

    "We are changing the dynamic of what has been the policy of this country for the last 10 years," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas.

    Added Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's leading Democrat: "There seems to be a solution in search of a problem."

    The Democrats are right in opposing this bill, but more than likely for the wrong reasons.

    Democrats rightly highlight that this could limit military flexibility, but I'd opine that their real reason for opposition to this bill is the inability of some of the American public to handle female losses in a combat zone. Republicans want women out of the combat zone for exactly that reason, as Rep. McHugh notes. It's about PR, not competency.

    Nobody wants women coming home in body bags (or men, for that matter), but Democrats and Republicans alike are simply using this bill as a weapon in political infighting. Cynical anti-war Democrats want women in combat, because their deaths (and assured overblown media hype surrounding the same) can be used as political pressure against the war effort.

    Republicans in Congress know this, and, being just as cynical as their foes across the aisle, seek to limit enemy contact so that women in the military so that can't be used as political pawns against them. The American public doesn't like the thought of women being wounded or killed in combat. Perhaps more importantly, we saw with the Jessica Lynch incident that the American public cannot stomach the depraved treatment that women face if captured alive.

    Gang rape, sexual torture... these are some of the horrors that people do not want to directly mention by name, but flow through the dark recesses of our minds when we think of women in combat--and it is a risk. Yet while we prefer not to think of it, many of these same dangers are also faced by male American combat forces.

    For how many years have we been told that rape is about power and domination more than sex? Women are perceived as being more at risk for this kind of treatment, and with just cause, but the fact remains that all of our soldiers know that this is a risk if they are captured, and yet they still lace up their boots, armor up, and do their duty.

    And never, ever forget, women can fight.


    For example, Raven 42.

    On a Sunday afternoon in March, a convoy of 30 civilian tractor trailers ran into an ambush by an estimated 40-50 heavily-armed insurgents at Salman Pak, Iraq. Three armored HMMWVs of MPs from the Kentucky National Guard that had been shadowing the convoy, charged into the kill zone, upset the ambush, and turned the tables on the Iraqi forces despite intense return fire.

    Seven Americans (three of them wounded) killed a total of 24 insurgents and captured 7 others. The ambush was completely routed; the vast majority of the attackers wiped out. Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian Women, the rest men-one is Mexican-American, the medic is African-American, and the other two are Caucasian.

    One female E5 claimed four killed terrorists killed directly with aimed shots, and the other sergeant claimed she killed another with an aimed M-203 grenade. Who wants to be the one to tell her that she did, "all right... for a girl." Not I.

    And it isn't as if American women in combat are a brand-new phenomenon. They've been there, from the beginning. And women have ably served well in other countries, in other wars, both in support roles and on the front lines.

    Large numbers of women served in the Soviet Army during World War II--nearly one million-- to great effect. Most did not see front line combat duty, but many did. They flew bombers, performed as snipers, and fought a guerilla war behind German lines. They served, and they served well.

    But this isn't about other countries. This is about America.

    American women want to serve. Some have died. More will die, whether we want them to, or not. If we've learned anything, it is that there is no frontline in modern warfare, and the enemy can strike a brigade-level base with mortar and rocket fire, as easily as they can a support convoy, or an infantry combat patrol.

    My advice to Congress? Let them fight. America's female soldiers earned that right, even if you don't have the stomach for it.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 18, 2005

    Trump Must Build

    When Daniel Libeskind's Freedom Tower design was accepted as a replacement for the World Trade Center, I felt a kick to the pit of my stomach. It was an impressive piece of architecture, but could not contain what the World Trade Center was, and should be again. The Libeskind design, though sincere, lacked even it's own soul. It was an empty shell, a skeleton, nothing more. If the WTC site has anything, it is souls--thousands of them.

    Only one profile deserves to occupy the hallowed ground in lower Manhattan. No substitute, no matter how impressive, could ever be appropriate for all that was won and lost that day.

    Thousands died that bright blue September morning, many of those because they simply got up, kissed their children goodbye, and went to work. Other's died in the most noble of human efforts, placing their very lives on the line in a gamble to help those who could not help themselves. For those victims that never had a chance, and for those brave men and women who turned toward the fire and ran into the inferno, there is only one fitting monument. There has only ever been one fitting monument.

    Trump gets this visceral truth.

    The people of New York and America at large, all wounded to some extent that day deserve, no demand, than a new Twin Towers rise like a phoenix from the ashes of the old; bigger, stronger, and better than it was before. The City That Never Sleeps should be home to nothing less than the Towers Than Would Not Die.

    Manhattan can never move forward with a lesser skyline. Trump must build.

    Note: Added to the Beltway Traffic Jam. Ace and Scott also have takes on the issue.


    Update: Father Jim Chern also has a moving argument for rebuilding the Twin Towers.

    Update: More details of the Twin Towers II design.

    Further Update: Lawhawk has lots more.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 16, 2005

    A Comment on the "Religion of Peace"

    When I hat-tipped Austin Bay's article yesterday as the inspiration for my Michael Isikoff/Lyndie England comparison, I did so after writing a comment that later I deleted before publication.

    That comment was in response to comments such as these that Austin compiled from Muslim comments around the web:

    “If the report proved true, it would become important that an apology be
    issued and addressed to Muslims all over the world to avoid increasing the
    hatred between nations and followers of religious faiths as well,†the Shoura
    said in a statement.

    The Shoura said it considered the incident an attack on Muslims all
    over the world. “The council considers it as an attack on the feelings of
    Muslims and their sanctity… and a violation of international law and human
    customs,†said the statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency…

    *****

    In Afghanistan, a group of clerics threatened to call for a holy war
    against the United States in three days unless it handed over military
    interrogators who are reported to have desecrated the Qur'an.

    *****

    “The American soldiers are known for disrespect to other religions. They do
    not take care of the sanctity of other religions,†Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the
    Pakistani chief of a coalition of radical Islamic groups, said Sunday.


    So Muslim leaders are worried about religious tolerance and disrespect?

    Quite frankly, let them go to hell.

    Islam is responsible for some of the largest human slaughters in human history, precisely for reasons of religious intolerance. Islam is the only religion that has proudly named a mountain range after one of their more serious crimes against humanity, and is responsible for more religious-based genocide that any other single religion that has ever existed on Planet Earth, genocide that continues to this very second in conflicts around this planet.

    Perhaps I might have a bit more sympathy for a religion that didn't codify lying as a religious duty and often boasts about a 1,400 year track record of murdering those that had different ideas. Islam may be a lot of things and it may have some peaceful adherents, but if there is one thing Islam that can be said with absolute authority about Islam, it is that Islam is not now, nor has it ever been, a "religion of peace."

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    The Indepedent's Incredible Self-Fisking Mr. Buncombe

    The UK-based Independent (Robert Fisk's employer) is running an Andrew Buncombe story reporting an "AWOL crisis" as a result of the War on Terror, with this lede:


    As the death toll of troops mounts in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's military recruiting figures have plummeted to an all-time low. Thousands of US servicemen and women are now refusing to serve their country.
    The problem is, the Independent don't have any figures to support that contention, and the one set of hard numbers the author provides at the end of the article suggests just the opposite; a significant reduction in desertions since 9/11.

    Welcome to the self-Fisking of Andrew Buncombe.

    Instead of interviewing credible expert witnesses, the Independent reporter stoops to using unsupported these third-party anecdotes:

    Staff who run a volunteer hotline to help desperate soldiers and recruits
    who want to get out, say the number of calls has increased by 50 per cent since
    9/11. Last year alone, the GI Rights Hotline took more than 30,000 calls. At
    present, the hotline gets 3,000 calls a month and the volunteers say that by the
    time a soldier or recruit dials the help-line they have almost always made up
    their mind to get out by one means or another.

    "People are calling us because there is a real problem," said Robert
    Dove, a Quaker who works in the Boston office of the American Friends Service
    Committee, one of several volunteer groups that have operated the hotline since
    1995. "We do not profess to be lawyers or therapists but we do provide both
    types of support."

    In other words, the author is relying upon uncorroborated information from biased sources that readily admit to providing services for which they are not qualified (other than Congress).

    In addition to collecting hearsay evidence from these amateur therapists, the Independent author also interviewed three soldiers who went AWOL:

    • Jeremiah Adler: who admitted to lying about being homosexual to get out of boot camp;
    • Jeremy Hinzman: a Fort Brag paratrooper who's application for amnesty was rejected by Canada;
    • Kevin Benderman: a Bradley IFV mechanic that claims to have seen acts that would constitute war crimes... if they turn out to be real.

    These three soldiers were the only ones interviewed, but what about the growing thousands of other soldiers that are deserting according to the Independent? They don't exist. The preceding 20 paragraphs of Buncombe's thesis were completely undone by his final three lines.

    It turns out that the number of soldiers deserting is on a significant decline:

    The Pentagon says it does not keep records of how many try to desert each year. A spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke, said the running rally[sic] had declined since 9/11 from 8,396 to the present total of 5,133.[emphasis added --ed.] She added: "The vast majority of those who desert do so because they have committed some criminal act, not for political or conscientious objector purposes."

    I think I'm going to become of conscientious objector myself, at least as it relates to Mr. Buncombe's shoddy and eventually self-defeating brand of journalism.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Michael Isikoff: the MSM's Lyndie England

    Newsweek's liberal--oops, I meant libel--has managed to kill 15 people so far as a reporter intent on tarring the government and the US military ran a story that now seems rooted in...

    Almost nothing.

    According to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, a "trusted source" told him the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book, was defaced in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two other sources Isikoff asked about the incident did not support the allegation, so what did Newsweek do?

    They ran the story.

    In the resulting uproar, 15 are dead, and westerners in the Muslim world are now at a heightened state of risk, all because of a half-baked rumor in an incomplete draft report that someone might have heard about. Great sourcing, guys. Glad to see you learned a lot from Mary Mapes.

    When an idiot by the name of Lyndie England exhibited foolish, unprofessional behavior that embarressed people, she was charged with crimes that could eventually land her in prison for a decade or more. As Michael Isikoff's foolish, unprofessional behavior got 15 people killed and scores wounded, I can only assume his prison term will match that of any other person who incites multiple murders (h/t: Austin Bay).

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 14, 2005

    A Letter to His Sons On the War

    This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004. My father forwarded it to me earlier this year, and it bears re-reading.

    Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

    As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President

    Roosevelt - WWII:
    President Truman - Korean War 1950;
    President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961);
    President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961);
    eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 -1991);
    President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998).

    So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

    The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

    First, let's examine a few basics:

    1. When did the threat to us start?

    Many will say September 11th, 2001.

    The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

    • Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
    • Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
    • Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
    • Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
    • First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
    • Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
    • Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
    • Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
    • Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
    • New York World Trade Center 2001;
    • Pentagon 2001.
    (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

    2. Why were we attacked?
    Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

    4. Who were the attackers?
    In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

    5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
    25%

    6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
    Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).

    Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else..

    The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements -killing all of us infidels.

    I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

    6. So who are we at war with?
    There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

    So with that background, now to the two major questions:
    1. Can we lose this war?
    2. What does losing really mean?

    If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

    We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam.

    This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

    We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.

    The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

    We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

    They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed
    their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

    The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

    If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

    Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

    So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

    Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

    - President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
    Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war.

    For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

    And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

    - Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
    conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

    - Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police.

    These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

    Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real?

    The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

    Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

    - We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

    This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

    If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

    Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

    They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.

    Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

    I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

    Love,
    Dad

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 13, 2005

    Avenger Red Six Rolls Back Into Action

    After a well-deserved break, Silver Star-winning milblogger Neil Prakash is back in his Abrams turret at Armor Geddon, pouring out the gritty details of what the battle for Fallujah was really like from someone who experienced it.


    Carpe Bonum did an excellent bit of public service and created an article index of Avenger Red Six's experiences in the assault on Fallujah from November 5-12, 2004. Future articles in the series seem imminent.

    A sample:

    "Red 6, Phantom 6. I want you to move to a position where you can observe the city. Ramrod 6 wants you to call for indirect. Adjust your first round. After that, it's ‘Fire for effect. Drop 50, fire for effect. Drop 50, fire for effect. And just keep doing that until someone tells you to stop, Got it?"

    Yeah I got it alright. Wipe out a grid square. The task force commander wanted me to level the city.

    Milblogging don't get much more tense than Armor Geddon.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 12, 2005

    Bronx Coward Convicted

    Via Michelle Malkin, I found out that Navy deserter (and Bronx native) Pablo Paredes has been convicted and now awaits sentencing. For those of you not following the story, Petty Officer 3rd Class Paredes was in the Navy when he refused to honor his commitment and report to his ship in San Diego for a tour. Because of his selfish act, another sailor was required to take Paredes tour.

    Citizen Smash, a San Diego Naval Reserve officer/milblogger who has already done a tour in the region, wrote this open letter to Paredes (who responded), and later had a few words with him in person.

    I hope Paredes enjoys his Chomsky in prison.


    Update: This observation by Lawhawk is too good to leave buried in the comments:

    The ship that Paredes was supposed to be on was on the vanguard of the US tsunami relief. Instead of helping save lives of tens of thousands of people affected by the tsunami, Paredes could think only of himself.

    Now, he'll have a year to think about his actions. In prison. Where he belongs.

    I'm sure that the sailor who took Paredes place was pissed to have to be called upon to do the work of Paredes, but will probably remember this particular mission with honor and a sense of pride of being there to help people far less fortunate than himself.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 11, 2005

    Bush Attacked By Complaints Dept

    A grenade found near where President Bush gave his speech in Tblisi,Georgia was found to be a non-active training grenade with neither explosives nor a detonator. CNN reports that the device was merely placed in the crowd, and not thrown, and that it was most likely placed in the crowd to scare people and attract media attention.

    A suspect was quickly apprehended based upon videotaped footage of the crowd.

    The would-be assassin was asked for a statement as he was whisked away by Georgian Security forces, but could only be heard mumbling something about "my stapler."

    *****

    When asked for comments about the apparent assassination attempt, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Lusional) simply muttered, "The loser."*

    It was unclear who he was referring to.

    Some liberals were quick to place the blame on--you guessed it--Karl Rove. Yet other Democrats were outraged that someone might have threatened the President's life overseas, when they'd prefer to have him assassinated at home.


    * Accurate, but not necessarily true.

    This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 09, 2005

    America's Weakest Terrorist Targets

    The TSA keeps us safe from breasts, corkscrews and old Methodists in wheel chairs when we fly. Government databases hassle those trying to rent moving trucks. The Department of Homeland Security keeps a close watch on the bord--well, let's not go there.

    But if you want to infect 100,000 or more with chemical or biological weapons, take your WMD-armed RV to America's #1 spectator sport, and you can pay for VIP parking to the slaughter without any significant hassle at all.

    Welcome to super-terrorism, NASCAR-style.

    NASCAR is America's fastest-growing spectator sport, and the massive, high-banked superspeedways are the largest sporting events in the United States. Crowds far in excess of 100,000 screaming fans fill many of the larger venues. Many of these venues also encourage speciality vehicle parking: RVs and colorful, customized buses of hardcore NASCAR fans willing to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars in passes and tickets to park either close outside the track, or even in the track infield (area enclosed by the race course).

    From Daytona to Charlotte and eventually Staten Island, NASCAR encourages fan attendance, and tracks profit handsomely off infield parking access for RVs and buses, with such speciality vehicle parking spaces garnering $750-$900 each at some venues.

    But there seems to be little or nothing done to screen these infield vehicles for hazardous materials, even though they are large enough to easily hide enough chemical or biological agents to infect hundred of thousands, if not millions of people. Ever heard one bit about this potential threat from the TSA or Homeland Security? Me neither. I doubt they've even considered the possibility. Sadly, these infield vehicles are far from the only threat.

    One or more RVs and buses parked outside of the track and upwind of the facility stand a chance of exposing far more people than an infield device, with a much smaller chance of the terrorists getting caught. With the incubation period of many biological threats being measured in days, millions of people could be exposed to bioweapons released at a NASCAR race and dispersed throughout the country by a hundred-thousand infected carriers before anyone really knew what was going on.

    Homeland Security is doing a wonderful job of guarding us against minor threats. Too bad Bubba bin Laden isn't even on the government's radar.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    Iraq the Casbah

    75 terrorists were killed by coalition forces in the first day of an offensive near Obeidi in Iraq's Anbar province. Obeidi and other towns in the province the western Iraqi desert north of the Euphrates had seen little action by coalition forces, and had been allowed to become a haven for foreign forces and insurgents.

    The sanctuary has turned out to be a trap, potentially the result of using a honeypot doctrine, a tactic that has proven effective both on strategic and tactical levels in the region in the past years.

    This can't be good for morale.

    This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    May 05, 2005

    Mess With The Bull, Get The Horns

    A U.S. Marine that killed a wounded terrorist in an illegally-fortified Fallujah mosque in front of NBC embedded videojournalist Kevin Sites will not face charges for that shooting, nor for two other terrorists he killed in the building that day when the Marine has reason to suspect the men were playing dead to launch ambushes.

    "Based on all the evidence in the case, and the rules of engagement that were in effect at the time, it is clear the corporal could have reasonably believed that the AIF [anti-Iraq forces] shown in the videotape posed a hostile threat justifying his use of deadly force," said a two-page statement about the statement issued by Camp Pendleton.

    I paraphrase it this way as a message for the troops from the Corps brass: if there is any question about who's life is more important, choose yours.

    This has been the way of warfare, or for that matter, nature, for millions of years. I thought liberals usually favored Darwinism over creationism.

    I guess that was until they got to see Darwinism at work.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    April 19, 2005

    The Damned of the West (part 1)

    Go read this interview with the family of American hostage Roy Hallums at the Jawa Report.
    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    The Damned of the West (part 1)

    Go read this interview with the family of American hostage Roy Hallums at the Jawa Report.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    April 11, 2005

    Another Sign of Success?

    The NY Times reports today that senior U.S. commanders are ready to begin thinking seriously about drawing down troop levels in Iraq, yet another subtle suggestion of progress in stabilizing a post-Saddam Iraq. The Times reports that U.S. commanders almost universally see signs of improvement, but perhaps an even more telling factor is that the Times is willing to give credence to the viewpoints of actual military commanders on the ground instead of the opinions of anti-war politicians and protestors.

    One would almost be tempted to think that coalition forces and the new Iraqi government forces are not only slowing ending the Iraqi insurgency, but the American media insurgency as well.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    April 09, 2005

    EXCLUSIVE: CBS Insurgent Capture Photo

    Confederate Yankee was able to scoop the MSM/DNC today, obtaining this exclusive photograph of the capture of a CBS video cameraman arrested as a suspected insurgent in northeastern Mosul, Iraq.



    I'm all news, all the time. Full power, tall tower. I want to break in when news breaks out. That's my agenda. Now, respectfully, when you start talking about a liberal agenda and all the, quote, 'liberal bias' in the media, I quite frankly, and I say this respectfully but candidly to you, I don't know what you're talking about." -- Dan Rather

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    April 08, 2005

    A Few More Good Men

    At a time when enlistment is low and the military has been forced to open up age restrictions, Army Sgt. Robert Stout, a Purple Heart recipient and veteran of the Iraq war wants to continue to serve his country, but a Pentagon trapped in the past may not let him. Why?

    Stout is openly gay.

    This brings him into direct conflict with the antiquated "don't ask, don't tell" policy still in use by the Pentagon, even though the bulk of our allies--Great Britain, Australia, Israel, etc--have had openly gay soldiers in their ranks for years. There are an estimated 65,000 gays currently serving in the U.S. military.

    I'm rather disappointed in our Petagon leadership both for the obvious discrimination against a minority group willing to serve this country, and in their underlying belief that our soliders are so immature and homophobic that they cannot function with openly gay soldiers in their units. American soldiers are among the best trained, most disciplined, and professional military forces in the world. To think that they cannot cope with homosexuality when they can cope with the vastly more intense emotions of combat is assinine, and selling our soldiers short.

    We've seen this kind of discrimination before from our military, but it is past time for it to stop. Our soldiers are better than that. It is time for their leadership to catch up.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    April 04, 2005

    To Hell and Back... Again

    Perhaps the most memorable scene in Audie Murphy's autobiographical To Hell and Back was when Murphy jumped up onto the back of a burning tank destroyer to single-handedly beat back a German assault using the .50-caliber M-2 machine gun mounted on top, earning the Congressional Medal of Honor, this nation's highest military award for valor.

    Two years ago today, in Baghdad, Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, 2nd Platoon, Bravo Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, would almost exactly mirror Murphy's achievement. The parallels are staggering, the heroism and love of their fellow soldiers unquestioned.

    Sgt. Smith was leading three dozen soldiers when they came under attack by an estimated 100 of the elite Iraqi Republican Guard armed with RPGs, machine guns, and mortars.

    From Sgt. Smith's official Medal of Honor citation:

    While an engineer squad began to clear debris in the courtyard, one of the guards saw 10-15 enemy soldiers with small arms, 60mm mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades (RPG). These were the lead elements of an organized company-sized force making a deliberate attack on the flank of Task Force 2-7. Sgt. 1st Class Smith came to the position and identified 25-50 more soldiers moving into prepared fighting positions. Sgt. 1st Class Smith instructed a squad leader to get a nearby Bradley Fighting Vehicle for support. While waiting for the Bradley, Sgt. 1st Class Smith had members of 2nd platoon retrieve AT-4 weapons and form a skirmish line outside the gate. By this time, the number of enemy identified rose to 100 soldiers, now a confirmed company-sized attack. Three of B Company's M113A3 armored personnel carriers (APC) oriented .50-cal. machineguns toward the opening in the wall and the surrounding guard towers, now occupied by enemy soldiers.

    Sgt. 1st Class Smith's actions to organize a defense against the deliberate attack were not only effective, but inspired the B Company, 11th Engineer Battalion Soldiers. He then began to lead by example. As the Bradley arrived on site and moved through the hole in the wall toward the gate, Sgt. 1st Class Smith ran to the gate wall and threw a fragmentation grenade at the enemy. He then took two Soldiers forward to join the guards and directed their engagement of the enemy with small arms. The enemy continued to fire rifles, RPGs, and 60mm mortars at the Soldiers on the street and within the courtyard. Enemy soldiers began moving along the buildings on the north side of the clearing to get into position to climb into the towers. Sgt. 1st Class Smith called for an APC to move forward to provide additional fire support. Sgt. 1st Class Smith then fired an AT-4 at the enemy while directing his fire team assembled near the front line of the engagement area.

    Running low on ammunition and having taken RPG hits, the Bradley withdrew to reload. The lead APC in the area received a direct hit from a mortar, wounding the three occupants. The enemy attack was at its strongest point and every action counted. Not only were the wounded Soldiers threatened but also more than 100 Soldiers from B Company, the Task Force Aid Station, and the Mortar Platoon were at risk.


    Sgt. 1st Class Smith ordered one of his Soldiers to back the damaged APC back into the courtyard after the wounded men had been evacuated. Knowing the APC 's .50-Cal. machinegun was the largest weapon between the enemy and the friendly position, Sgt. 1st Class Smith immediately assumed the track commander's position behind the weapon, and told a soldier who accompanied him to "feed me ammunition whenever you hear the gun get quiet." Sgt. 1st Class Smith fired on the advancing enemy from the unprotected position atop the APC and expended at least three boxes of ammunition before being mortally wounded by enemy fire. The enemy attack was defeated. Sgt. 1st Class Smith's actions saved the lives of at least 100 Soldiers, caused the failure of a deliberate enemy attack hours after 1st Brigade seized the Baghdad Airport, and resulted in an estimated 20-50 enemy soldiers killed. His actions inspired his platoon, his Company, the 11th Engineer Battalion and Task Force 2-7 Infantry.

    Sgt. Smith and Second Lieutenant Audie L. Murphy both mounted heavily-damaged, lightly armored vehicles to man exposed .50-caliber machine guns. They did so to repel enemy assaults that threatened to overrun their positions at great personal risk and with tremendous valor to save the lives of their soldiers.

    Sgt. Smith's Congressional Medal of Honor was just the third Medal of Honor awarded since the Vietnam war, and the first of the Iraqi War.

    Not just American Heros
    In Al Amarah, Iraq on May 1, and June 11 , 2004, Private Johnson Beharry, driver of a Warrior IFV ( infantry fighting vehicle similar to the U.S. Bradley) in the British Army, won Great Britain's highest award for valor, the Victoria Cross. It was the first Victoria Cross awarded since the Falklands conflict, and the first awarded to a living recipient since 1965.


    Note: Unfortunately, not everyone respects Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 31, 2005

    American Journalist Kidnapped? Don't ask CNN

    Two independent foreign media services have reported that three Romanian journalists and a naturalized American journalist have been kidnapped in Iraq. But don't try to find the story in the major media. The Jawa Report the leading American authority on this one. Also previously covered by Jawa here and here.

    No wonder Google News dropped The Jawa Report.

    They're competent.

    Update: CNN has now caught on.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 25, 2005

    The Camp Bucca Redemption


    CAMP BUCCA, IRAQ -- U.S. military police Friday thwarted a massive escape attempt by suspected insurgents and terrorists from this southern Iraq Army base that houses more than 6,000 detainees when they uncovered a 600-foot tunnel the detainees had dug under their compound.

    "We were very close to a very bad thing," Major Gen. William Brandenburg said Friday after troops under his command discovered the tunnel that prisoners had painstakingly dug with the help of makeshift tools.

    Within hours of the discovery on the first tunnel, a second tunnel of about 300 feet was detected under an adjoining compound in the camp, which holds 6,049 detainees. The elaborate escape is reminiscent of the 1994 movie, "The Shawshank Redemption," where a prisoner burrows his way out of prison.

    See what happens when you don't keep an eye on Tim Robbins?

    (hat tip Drudge)

    Update: Added the quote from the article for context.


    Update 2: Added to the Beltway Traffic Jam.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 23, 2005

    Crossing the Divide with No One Watching

    I wrote in early February that the U.S. had won a psychological battle of sorts against terrorism by being able to laugh at its increasing desperation.

    Today, Iraqis took a major step towards winning their own psychological battle against terrorism with a very real military victory against a terrorist training base, killing 85 terrorists with the loss of seven Iraqi police commandos killed and six wounded.

    This event is a concrete step forward for Iraqi self-determination, proving they are becoming ever more capable of their own security, even if they are a long way from a U.S. withdrawal. You would think that the media, highly critical of the U.S.-led war, would welcome the news and be very excited about this development. You would think that, but you'd be wrong.

    CNN chose to report the angle that the battle showed terrorist forces were weakening, but chose not to make much of the mention that this was the first offensive fought primarily by Iraqi government forces, with the U.S. forces in a supporting role.

    The AP story on Yahoo! said that "U.S. and Iraqi forces" carried out the raid, but again, made no special mention that the Iraqis were the primary forces involved military involvement. MSNBC mirrored that approach, as did Fox News.

    ABC News put the story of the successful raid well below the fold, instead focusing on the "news" that Osama bin Laden had evaded capture (thanks for the late-breaking news, ABC).

    Perhaps not surprisingly, CBS News buried the story completely, not having a single apparent link to the story on their front page, but chose instead to answer such burning questions as "Do bad teeth make bad babies?" and "Why Marry Scott Peterson?"

    Of all the major news organizations it was the BBC that recognized the importance of today's raid, with the headline "Iraqi Troops Blitz Insurgent Camp," and a story focusing on the Iraqi commando involvement.

    This a big day for Iraq. Too bad the rest of the world didn't notice.

    Update: Apparently some of the world did notice, and one of the better bloggers out there noticed it. Tigerhawk has a good article up about how Stratfor has more or less reversed its position from three months ago on the ability of Iraqi security forces to combat the insurgency. The Stratfor revision cites the successful March 22 raid specifically as a validation of an emerging Iraqi army.


    Home

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

    March 09, 2005

    CSI Baghdad: Guiliana Sgrena is Lying

    According to Guiliana Sgrena, America forces fired "300-400" bullets at the vehicle she was in as it sped towards the Baghdad International Airport.

    Pictures say thousands words, and every one of these says that Guiliana Sgrena is wrong. I know a bit about firearms, and I know a bit about shooting sheet metal objects (old real estate signs, acquired legally, are great target holders). The five pictures of Sgrena's escape vehicle on the Jawa Report doesn't appear to match up with her story of 300-400 rounds, for several reasons.

    There aren't enough holes in the windshield and other passenger compartment glass. As a matter of fact, only one is readily apparent in the windshield, which should have been perforated by slightly off-target shots at the car's engine block, and ricochets from shots that did hit the engine block, frame, and other heavy metal elements in the car. The rear glass and backseat passenger's window on the driver's side also show no damage.

    There are no holes in the sheet metal around the engine block, one apparent hit to the driver's headrest and only one apparent tire puncture. I say apparent, because the pictures are too blurry to be sure what is going on here, but that the arrows are pointing at bullet holes are the obvious assumption we have to work with.

    These photos immediately establish several points with solid evidence proving Sgrena wrong for anyone with a minimal knowledge of military weapons.

    M2 heavy machine guns, M240 medium machine guns and M249 light machine guns are the only belt-fed weapons in wide deployment by U.S. ground forces in Iraq to the best of my knowledge (Rambo's famous and fragile M60 is largely phased out). These are the only weapons that could lay down the amount of fire claimed by Sgrena in the amount of time she claimed. M-4 carbines, M-16 rifles and even the experimental XM-8 rifle all use 30-round box magazines, and would have had to make multiple reloads in that time period, even if several rifles were firing. The physics of her claim simply doesn't add up.

    However, all of these rifles have single-shot capability, which is the preferred method of operation when placing precision shots, which most closely matches the few bullet holes in the vehicle.

    If the rate of fire Sgrena claims was true, by definition it would have required automatic fire to occur in the few seconds she claims it did. As anyone who has ever watched an action movies knows, weapons firing in automatic mode "walk" their fire across the target area. This did not happen here, or the sheet metal and glass around the three apparent holes would contain many, many more bullet impacts.

    Furthermore, M2, M240, and M240 machine guns would have left very dramatic high-velocity exit wounds on the passenger side of the vehicle, made all the more dramatic (and "holey") by shrapnel. And yet, these pictures do not exist.

    We are left to draw only one logical conclusion for this, and that is that Guiliana Sgrena dramatically inflated the number of shots fired at her speeding car. That she is alive to make the claim only confirms it.

    Disclaimer: Confederate Yankee is not now, nor has ever been, a crime scene investigator at home or abroad... but I can tell what a bullet hole looks like, and they aren't here.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 04:34 PM | Comments (0)

    Vietnam: The Next Iraq?

    What Glenn Reynolds asks for, Glenn Reynolds receives.

    The excellent and informative WSJ article that created Glenn's longing is here.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:08 PM | Comments (0)

    March 07, 2005

    The (Botched) Italian Job

    I don't particularly like placing blame on what was most likely a tragic accident, but I'm not going to let a terrorist-sympathizing communist nor her weak-willed supporters in the Italian government get the only digs in, either.

    Guiliana Sgrena was the Italian communist journalist who went to Iraq with the sole apparent goal of making the war look bad as possible, in hopes of pressuring her government to pull out of Iraq. She was conveniently taken hostage, and appeared in a tearful video the very day the Italian senate was to vote on continued involvement in Iraq, pleading for her life and an Italian withdrawal.

    On March 4, Sgrena was released by her captors when the Italian government paid them off with a ransom of millions of dollars, thus supplying the terrorists funds to by more weapons to kill more coalition soldiers and Iraqi policemen, judges, women, and children.

    Because they were supplying money to the terrorists, the Italians apparently kept American forces in the dark. The Italian government felt we wouldn't appreciate them financing terrorism.

    I wonder where they might get that idea.

    In any event, SISMI (Italian intelligence) did not bother to let their American counterparts know all the details of this bribery, err, rescue mission. As a result, American military forces at the checkpoint did not expect the Italians, and responded within their rules of engagement when the car carrying Sgrena refused to stop.

    Becuase of their willingness to capitulate to terrorism and conceal the truth, an Italian security officer, Nicola Calipari, is dead.

    There should be a full investigation not only of this event, but of Sgrena's alleged kidnapping and full month of so-called captivity. If she is found to have willingly helped the terrorists as her own words seem to imply, then Guilian Sgrena should face manslaughter charges for helping to create a situation that led to Mr. Calipari's death.

    For more information about Sgrena's "abduction," check out The Jawa Report which has covered this story extensively.

    Cox & Forkum show what could have happened if U.S. forces did not handle the situation the way they did.


    Update: So, Matt Drudge, what did you really think of Sgrena's claims?

    Thanks, Matt.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:43 AM | Comments (0)

    March 05, 2005

    Six Degrees: Bacon to Hinchey to Osama

    As promised, Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon connecting activist/actor/musician Kevin Bacon, to conspiracy theory-spouting liberal congressman Maurice Hinchey, to terrorist mastermind and head of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.

    It goes something like this:

    1. Kevin Bacon is a co-founder of moveon.org.
    2. Hinchey signed a letter supporting moveon.org's attempt to run an anti-Bush commerical.
    3. Hinchey is the featured speaker for an International ANSWER rally on March 19, 2005.
    4. A key member of the steering commitee of International ANSWER is the national Muslim Student Association, which has had at least one chapter raise money for recognized terrorist groups.
    5. The MSA is a front group of the the radical Wabbabist sect of Saudi Arabia most closely associated with al Qaeda.
    6. al Qaeda's Wahhabi leader? Osama bin Laden.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:20 AM | Comments (0)

    March 04, 2005

    Left-Wing Italian Journalist Released

    The Jawa Report called it from the start. I guess one can only engage in making just so much anti-American propoganda for the enemy before burning out and needing to come home and rest.

    Update: Sgrena was apparently shot and wounded and a bodyguard killed by U.S. Forces at a checkpoint roadblock somewhere in Iraq. Notoriously aggressive Italian drivers barreling down on soldiers primed to repel vehicular suicide bombers is a recipe for disaster. As you would expect, the Democratic Underground thinks Eason Jordan should be reinstated at CNN.

    Update: Speaking of CNN:

    According to a multinational forces statement, the car approached the checkpoint at high speed about 9 p.m. (1 p.m. ET)

    U.S. troops "attempted to warn the driver to stop by hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots in front of the car," the statement said. "When the driver didn't stop, the soldiers shot into the engine block, which stopped the vehicle, killing one and wounding two others."

    I am very disappointed at the U.S. soldiers that fired on this vehicle.

    If a vehicle is approaching your checkpoint at a high rate of speed and refuses to slow down or veer away despite the hand signals, flashing lights, and warning shots, you blow it away. Completely.

    There should have been no survivors.

    That there were survivors means that an appropriate force may not have been used. Our soldiers have one primary overriding goal, and that is their own personal safety, followed by the safety of the civilians around them that they are there to protect. If they suspected this vehicle was carrying a suicide bomber they should have put enough firepower on it to not only stop it, but to destroy any suspected explosive ordinance it could have been carrying.

    That may sound callous to some, but it is a far more preferable outcome than this one last week where a suicide car bomber murdered 115 and wounded 132 Iraqi civilians. That Giuliana Sgrena is alive is the result an apparent inadequate use of force.

    I would like this story to be covered in more detail so we can discover why the soldiers stopped firing upon what they had every reason to believe was a suicide bomber.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:56 PM | Comments (0)

    February 07, 2005

    ActionFigureGate Continues

    SITE Institute currently has a story up about a message board member who takes credit for the "ActionFigureGate" hoax where a G.I.Joe-type doll was used in a particularly lame "hostage" attempt last week.

    According the SITE, the hoaxer wrote :

    In the name of God, the Most Merciful and Most Compassionate,

    Soldier John Adam is [only] a toy.

    I am a 20-year old Iraqi young man. I am unarmed, independent and do not belong to any party or group. I apologize to all the parties and everyone, for I meant nothing by that [no harm].

    The picture was a scheme that I made up with a toy that I bought with $5.

    Today I am announcing that this news was made up, and that the picture was of a toy that I worked on with the help of some children.

    I cannot provide any information about me because, as I mentioned earlier, I am unarmed, and any information about me might jeopardize my life and the lives of my family [members].

    My apologies to everyone.

    The hoaxer, who identifies himself as "al-Iraqi4," apparently includes a picture showing him setting up the famed picture.

    The problem is that this picture appears to be a fake as well.

    If you look at the wall and floor in the original picture, you'll see what appears to be an unpainted wall and floor, that both appear to be made of rough concrete that is mostly tan in color.

    If you look at the SITES photo, you see a floor that is of gray concrete and a wall that has been painted white.

    Also, you will note that the size of the two banners are different (the original is almost square, the SITES photo is more rectangular) and that the Arabic writing is significantly shorter on the original.

    This admission appears to be as much a hoax as the original story.

    Update: Added to OTB's Beltway Traffic Jam.

    Update 2: There are also a hint in the text itself that leads me to beleive this was faked, but I only thought about it just now. The poster claimed that he paid for it in dollars ($). The last I checked, the monetary unit of Iraq is the dinar, not the dollar.


    Update 3: The imposter claims that he is not part of any group... so how does he have posting rights on a known militant web site?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:48 PM | Comments (0)

    February 01, 2005

    Zarqawi quits al Qaeda, joins C.O.B.R.A.

    Apparently Zarqawi and the Iraqi insurgency are so desperate to capture a U.S. solder to use as a hostage, that they doesn't even care if the soldier in question is only twelve inches tall.

    It all started when Drudge cited this story where militants claimed to have captured a U.S solider.

    Now, if you had taken the time to really look at the full-size image in the story, you might have developed deep suspicions early on. For starters, the uniform has no insignia. Second, the soldier does not appear to have the first bit of equipment on his vest. Every picture I've seen coming out of Iraq shows U.S. soldiers with wires, cables, hydration tubes, etc, sticking out all over the place, which are horribly absent here. Of course, the overly shiny head, expressionless face and fake gun (what's an oversized AR-10 receiver doing on a M-4, and why is it in camo?) also should have been clues.

    I do think it is so funny that the insurgency is so pathetic that they are reduced to kidnapping children's toys. Maybe "Z-Man" isn't getting enough sleep, what with inner circle being picked off or picked up one-by-one, and the proverbial noose getting tighter around his neck.

    I can understand him going off the deep end under that kind of pressure--we watch liberals do it every day--but I still don't think his new allies of The Baroness and Cobra Commander will do him much good.

    They're too preoccupied with competing against Howard Dean for the chair of the DNC.

    Update: Backcountry Conservative is on the case with what is probably the biggest roundup of blogger reaction out there.

    Update 2: Thank you again, Glenn. Hello, Instalanche! Folks, please look around, and bookmark the site (CTRL+B) if you like it. Also, please check out some of the sites in my blogroll. You might not have heard of some of them, but they are all great reads. Fellow bloggers, if you like the site, please add me to your blogrolls. Thanks!

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)

    January 26, 2005

    Iraqi Election Video Promos You Should Watch


    Nickie Goomba of Hey, Relax....I'm Just Sayin' asks you to please watch this video.

    Something tells me that despite the increasingly irrelevant rantings of leftists here at home such as Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and terrorists overseas such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (D-Jordan), that Iraq is far from a quagmire heading into their elections.

    No, I think they'll do just fine.

    (Hat tip: basil's blog)

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 03:55 PM | Comments (0)

    November 23, 2004

    Little Green Foul Balls -Redux

    It seems that once again Charles and I are disagreeing about the issue of photojournalist Kevin Sites. For those of you who did not catch the last thread I wrote on the subject, I felt the crowd at Little Green Footballs was wrong to vilify Sites for shooting the video of a Marine killing a wounded terrorist inside a Fallujah mosque that had been used for days as a fortified bunker.

    I had taken the time to read a few of the entries at Sites' blog, and thought that he wasn't the left-wing apologist bent on fabricating the news that many were accusing him of being. I said that I thought Sites showed himself to be another war correspondent trying to make sense of the insanity of a combat zone.

    Over the weekend, Sites wrote Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1 in an attempt to explain the decision he made to release the video he shot in Fallujah.

    I agree with LGF that the information about the incident itself has not changed from the original report. No, where I disagree with Charles is where he asserts that Sites is somehow of less importance as a human being for being a war correspondent and not a Marine rifleman.

    He seems to imply that Sites is a traitor by saying Sites, "doesn't share the goals of the people operating the weapons."

    I must ask: what kind of America does Charles Johnson want to live in?

    The "goal" of America has always seemed to me to be promoting individual liberties and freedom for every human being. I firmly feel that the freedom of our press to operate freely, without censorship, is our single greatest long-term weapon ensuring that freedom, not the use bullets and bombs.

    The free exchange of ideas may not ensure individual truths, but it does ensure the discussion of larger truths important to the essence of our democracy.

    Journalists reporting stories as accurately as they can "straight down the middle" do not create dangerous long-term situations. Censoring our media and turning them into propaganda mills creates danger for the very foundation of our democracy.

    If we are as strong and kind and noble as we would like to believe ourselves to be, then honest reporting of even the most difficult, complex stories is no threat to our society or way of life. Contrary to some popular wisdom, the airing of this video does not constitute a "defeat." This story, and others like it, are bound to emerge In Iraq as they do in every war.

    The measure of our society and its values emerges in how we respond to these events.

    In my opinion, Sites himself said it quite well in his Open Letter:

    The Marines have built their proud reputation on fighting for freedoms like the one that allows me to do my job, a job that in some cases may appear to discredit them. But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become.

    There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation -by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse…villains.

    I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Fallujah began. He said something very powerful at the time-something that now seems prophetic. It was this:

    "We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."

    We are the good guys.

    And as long as we have the courage of our convictions and the faith to never compromise our liberties for what may be politically expedient, we will remain strong, we will remain just, and we will remain an example for those in the Middle East and around the world that aspire to freedom.

    I believe Ben Franklin is credited with once saying:

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    I would think Mr. Franklin would be very disappointed to know that so many seem to be willing to stifle the essential freedoms of the First Amendment in the childish hopes that by suppressing a few seconds of video, our mortal enemies would somehow be less bent on our ultimate and total destruction.

    Those that feel this way have neither an understanding of our enemy, nor of the essential nature of this country that makes it worth fighting for.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:04 AM | Comments (0)

    November 17, 2004

    Little Green Foul Balls

    Charles Johnson has an awesome blog at Little Green Footballs (one of my daily reads), but I think he's making a bad call by villifying Kevin Sites. Sites is the NBC reporter that shot the infamous video several days ago of a Marine killing a wounded terrorist inside a Fallujah mosque that had been used for days as a fortified bunker.

    I wrote in a previous thread that I'd reviewed Sites' own photoblog, and he seems much more like a later day Ernie Pyle trying to accurately explain life in a combat zone to his readers than a left-wing apologist bent on fabricating the news.

    But don't take my word for it.


    Read some of Ernie Pyle's columns from World War II and then the latest available entry from Sites in Fallujah. They are far more alike than different.

    Kevin Sites seems to be one journalist who tries to be objective, and to attack him personally for objectively reporting a tough story does not serve our democracy well.

    Note: This thread has been picked up by Instapundit.com. Thanks, Glen.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:20 PM | Comments (0)

    November 16, 2004

    The Pornography of War


    As I write this, the Dowd's and Krugman's of the left are doubtlessly wringing their hands with macabre delight. A videotape has surfaced apparently showing a Marine in Fallujah firing a shot into the head of a wounded terrorist lying on the floor of the mosque he'd used as a bunker.

    The New York Times will run this on the front page for several weeks if they can find a way to justify it, and Dan Rather will make sure it leads every broadcast as long as he thinks it can be used against the administration. The shrieking classes are almost sexually titillated as they ache for another Abu Graib as an excuse to attack a U.S. military they have always loathed.

    We will see the still photos and the few brief seconds of video hundreds, if not thousands of times in the days and weeks ahead. What we will not see is the true story, and the media, which is not equipped to handle the truth, will most likely not even try to provide it in their rush to an accusatory climax.

    This is what we know.

    Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, came under fire from terrorists hiding in a mosque on Friday. 10 terrorists were killed and five more were wounded. The following day, another group of Marines from the same unit engaged in battle, and an embedded correspondent reported seeing fresh gunshot wounds on terrorists that had been injured the previous day.

    It was during this second day operation that a group of Marines is seen coming up upon this group of terrorists, and a Marine is heard to yell several times, "He's faking he's dead!" The Marine then fired a single shot, killing the terrorist.

    You will probably here most of this part of the story from the mainstream media, right before they try to crucify our soldiers in an almost orgasmic lust.

    Here is what they won't tell you.

    They won't tell you that shortly before this incident, one Marine was killed and five were injured when a booby-trapped body went off just a block away.

    They won't tell you that insurgents that have faked being dead or wounded have risen up to shoot at our troops from behind in this battle. The will probably "forget" to mention that four of the five terrorists in the video had fresh wounds, meaning that after being wounded the first day and left to be taken prisoner, then once again raised arms and tried to kill American soldiers after having once been spared.

    I don't know if what this young Marine did was right. I wasn't there. I can't imagine the pressure of days of close quarters battle. I simply don't now enough to form a judgment at this time. I will withhold judgment and let the Uniform Code of Military Justice runs its course.

    War is jarringly violent and chaotic. I hope the media can try to understand this as they rush to pass judgment on this Marine, in what is almost sure to be a pornographic display of media hatred for this administration and our soldiers in the field.

    Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:01 AM | Comments (0)